Why shouldn't a court prohibit THIS BEHAVIOR?

Question

Of course it doesn't apply to someone to marriage.
It does happen people. Thanks for the info. Why is this so hard to do? If the person is so important, why not marry or at least get engaged to him or her"
See below:
"In a case of first impression that several family law attorneys say will have a broad impact on custody disputes, Dallas' 5th Court of Appeals ruled in Peck v. Peck that it's within a trial court's discretion to ban a parent's bed partner, at least when the child is staying with that parent. The ruling reaffirms a trial court's power to issue such permanent injunctions that are aimed at protecting "the best interest of the child."

The July 13 opinion concerns Michael Peck and Pamela Peck, who filed for divorce in Collin County, Texas. The final order signed by visiting Judge John L. McCraw permanently enjoined both parents from having a person of the opposite sex stay overnight while the parent is "in possession of" the couple's 9-year-old son."

But you are not too bright, amber. the ruling only applies if you are not married. it wouldn;t apply to you.

Apparently some parents are too selfish to act in the best interest of the children without court intervention.

Answer 1

I think it's really sad that a court should have to tell a parent not to sleep with someone outside of marriage with their children in the house. It used to be people just knew better than to do something like that. But, at some point, we decided that parents' desires are more important than the welfare of their children.

Divorced parents, remember that bringing unrelated people into your household greatly increases the chances your children will be molested. PLEASE, keep it out of the house.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, this is the way I think it should be. It is the rare cases where the new person/bed partner is a better influence than the custodial parent. It is also better for the child because divorce is a very difficult time for children. Bringing in a new partner in an already confusing situation can only cause more trauma.

My daughters father used to have her every other weekend and it almost killed me to let her go. He lived in a house with 3 femal strippers where men were constantly coming and going. The environment was nasty and when my daughter finally came home with lice I had no choice but to take him back to court for this exact thing. Now, my situation is also an extreme but it is simply not mentally or emotionally healthy for a child who has gone through or is going through a divorce to be subjected to a new partner in the parents' lives. This new partner might be a wonderful influence but they also might not be there but for a few months or a year. The child grows attached and then BAM, another parent figure is gone from their lives. It's simply too much for a child to adjust to until the relationship is on the road to becoming more permanent.

Answer 3

"the best interest of the child" can mean anything from banning sugary drinks, to restricting what they see on television, to being sure that the child is in bed by 7pm on weeknights.

How much control of our lives do we need to relinquish to the government?

Should parents have sex while the children are at home? What about oral sex? Should dad be able to drink a beer? Can mom use hair products that emit poisonous gases? Dogs and cats introduce parasites, some of which are deadly, into the home. Should we let the courts decide if we can have pets or not?

Should the speed limits be posted to reflect a lower speed for vehicles containing passengers under the age of 18?

If the government has ANY of the answers, shouldn't it also have ALL of the answers?

Why can't we make it without the government?

Answer 4

Well that's a good thing to me, the child could be confused as to whats really going on anyway, the parents just got divorced and they are with other people that they don't know, it used to be mommy and daddy like that now its just mommy and some guy and daddy and some girl, it really is a good thing until the child gets older and knows what is going on and has gotten used to the fact that mommy and daddy won't be together ever again

Answer 5

I think it's done to prevent the "uncle" syndrome, where the parent has so many different "uncles" show up every weekend that it affects the child's psychological well being. A divorced parent has the right to date whoever they want, but sheesh, can't they go without it for ONE night?

Answer 6

These parents are probably the ones who left and therefore such selfishness was there to begin with. I applaud the court.

Answer 7

I can understand why it would be in the best interest of the child. I know someone who let her boyfriend stay the night at her house all the time and she got upset when her younger sister, who she has custody of, started sleeping around. Well, duh! She only learned by example! Also, if you start letting anyone stay over, you put your child at risk of getting abused. My brother was molested by one of my mom's boyfriends. We didn't know this 'til yrs later!

Answer 8

Sounds very suspect to me....senario...What if one of the parents were an abuser to that child??...(the judge has ordered there to be no witness to this abuse)...Isn't that, then regarded as putting a child at enormous risk??...

Answer 9

i can understand it. it's not a good idea to allow kids to see their parent involved with someone at that level. however, if the persons were living together and not married i don't think it should apply.

Answer 10

thats a bunch of crap, Im a better mother to my stepdaugher than her own mother is. She's the one who should be banned from ever seeing her daughter