Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in orders

Parental Alienation, Malicious Mother Syndrome, dealing with the ex, and various other non-legal concerns throughout the process.

Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in orders

Postby dadmisseskids » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:01 pm

We always see something like this in an MSA every now and again:
No party shall have overnight personal guests of the opposite sex to whom they are not married or related by blood or marriage while the minor children are in the home during periods of physical custody and/or < parenting time >.

Then most of us always say that a court will never enforce it. I agree for the most part but I always have the thought that if a judge will put it in there, given the right circumstances, he will enforce it. So I did some research into case law to see if that was actually true. This thread is intended to get points of view on the case law and elicit substantive discussions about this topic. Some guys get wrapped around the axle about the STBX or ex-wife banging another guy while she has parenting time and In the future, we can just refer them to this thread.

Out of the state of Georgia:
Lastly, the father and the grandmother challenge the provision of the trial court's order that prohibits any party from having overnight guests of the opposite sex during periods of physical custody of and/or < parenting time > with T.A.S. or his sister. The order does not prohibit all contact with unmarried or unrelated companions; it is more narrowly drawn to protect the children from exposure to certain conduct by either parent, i.e., having overnight stays with unrelated members of the opposite sex. The condition is clearly intended to preclude potential sexual relations by either of the parties with unwed partners in the presence of the children, a type of limitation within the discretion of the trial court.
In this case, it appears as though the court of appeals (specifically the judge who wrote this opinion) defers to the trial court and their "discretion" to include this language. But wait, there's a dissenting opinion by another judge:
I respectfully disagree with the analysis in Division 3, which addresses the provision of the trial court's order prohibiting any party from having overnight guests of the opposite sex during periods of physical custody of and/or < parenting time > with T.A.S. or his sister. Because this prohibition is unenforceable under binding precedent of the Supreme Court of Georgia and this Court, I believe we are constrained to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing it upon the parties.
The Supreme court of Georgia basically said, in layman's terms, "Look, if a parent wants to fu*k, let them. As long as it's not being done in front of the kids, who cares!" Case law in Georgia says, you can put in your MSA or divorce decree that the other parent cannot have other members of the opposite sex sleep over but it's not worth a hill of beans if you try to have it enforced.

However, the Court of Appeals will enforce that "overnight guest" section, but only if there is an adverse affect on the kids.
In the absence of any evidence that exposure to a third party will have an adverse effect on the best interests of the children, a trial court abuses its discretion by prohibiting a parent from exercising his or her custodial rights in that person's presence. In light of this precedent, I believe we must conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the challenged < parenting time > restriction.


Out of the state of South Carolina:
Father takes issue with the following provision in the divorce decree:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all parties be, and are hereby, enjoined and restrained from having contact with a member of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage in the presence of either child from the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. This injunction and restriction applies to any structure or open area where the children and the party will sleep in close proximity to each other.
This judge was specific! Anyhow, the court of appeals stated:
Father argues that this restriction is overly broad and unreasonable. For example, he contends that if read literally, Caitlyn would not be allowed to have any girlfriends sleep over when Father has custody of Caitlyn. We agree.
That was simply stated by the father; short and to the point. In another similar case in South Carolina, the court of appeals said:
This restriction was intended to prevent the child from visiting in the presence of [the father's] live-in girlfriend. The restriction is overly broad and unreasonable as there was no finding that the presence of [the girlfriend] would adversely affect the welfare of the child.... Even if this finding had been made, the restriction is overly broad in carrying out its intended purpose. Carried to its logical extreme, it would prevent the child from entertaining his own friends at his father's home.


Out of the State of Louisiana:
On May 19, 2000, Cheryl Harper, through counsel, filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Motion for Modification of < parenting time > seeking to prevent and restrict Fred Harper from exercising overnight < parenting time > with his children "while a person of the opposite sex to whom said defendant is not married resides or is present overnight in the residence or structure where the < parenting time > will occur.
This chick is crazy. She went and applied for a restraining order so the father couldn't have any women sleep over! What's even more crazy you ask? The court signed the TRO!
The trial court signed the TRO on the same day the petition was filed, enjoining Fred Harper from exercising < parenting time > with his children on an overnight basis while a person of the opposite sex to whom he was not married was present.
To make matters worse, the court GRANTED the TRO and now it's permanent!
Allowing the hearing and argument on June 6, 2000, the trial court denied Fred Harper's Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order and his request for attorney's fees and costs. The injunction was issued restraining and prohibiting "both parties to this proceeding from exercising overnight custody and/or < parenting time > with the minor children born of their marriage while under the same roof, or in the same home with a person of the opposite sex to whom the parent in question is not related either by marriage or by blood." Further, it was ordered that the custody and < parenting time > agreement be modified to include the restriction set forth in the injunction. It is from this judgment that Fred Harper appeals.
Here is the Court of Appeals opinon:
Under the requested restriction, as noted by Fred Harper, the consequences would be absurd. He could stay in adjoining hotel rooms, with a woman in one room and he in the other, but not in his three bedroom Gulf Shores home, despite the fact that each bedroom has a separate door that locks. Further, he could not take his children with him for a weekend in Gulf Shores and also invite friends with children to join them for the weekend if the "friends" include a married couple, and, thus, an unrelated female. He could not, for that matter, bring a female nanny or babysitter with him on an overnight trip. The excessiveness of the restriction needs no further elaboration.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court issuing an injunction and ordering modification of the custody < parenting time > agreement, "prohibiting the parties from exercising overnight custody and/or < parenting time > with the minor children born of their marriage while under the same roof, or in the same home with a person of the opposite sex to whom the parent in question is not related either by marriage or by blood" and denying Fred Harper's request for attorney fees and costs is reversed. The case is remanded for the trial court to set an appropriate award for attorney fees and costs.
I have to admit, this one was a bit out there. There was nothing in the document that stated the father was harming his kids or anything even close to that. The mother just said she didn't want another woman to sleep in his house when the kids were there. For the court to approve the TRO and then make it permanent is a little ridiculous.

Out of the state of Indiana, this one is relatively the same, but with a same sex partner:
Neither parent shall allow an unrelated adult member of the opposite sex, or of the same sex if they are involved in a homosexual relationship with that parent, to spend overnight with them while a child is in their care.
That was put in the trial court order and the trial court swapped custody because the mother violated this clause. In reading it, it seems as if the judge had issues with her homosexuality but nevertheless, custody was swapped because of this violation.

The Court of Appeals opinion stated:
Had the evidence revealed that Mother flagrantly engaged in untoward sexual behavior in the boys' presence, the trial court may have been justified in finding her to be unfit and, accordingly, awarded custody to Stepmother.

We hold that imposing the standard overnight restriction without a finding of harm to or adverse effect upon the children is an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The trial court erred by a priori imposing the restriction upon Mother without the requisite finding of harm. Imposition of such restriction can be justified only when it is based upon a finding of harm to the children on a case-by-case basis. < parenting time > and custody determinations must be determined with respect to the best interests of the children, not the sexual preferences of the parents.

Applying this rule to the present case, because the record does not support a finding of harm to the children, we conclude that the trial court should not have imposed the standard overnight restriction. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court's order.

In this case, the trial court enforced that section of the order. Sometimes we talk about how you have rights but you are solely responsible for protecting them. In this case, the mother lost custody because she violated the overnight clause in her order. If she never appealed, she would have lost custody permanently. By appealing, she has now set a precedent whereby even if you have this clause in your order and you violate it, it does not mean you are in contempt. It just defers to a second question and that is, "Does this behavior affect the children in a negative manner?" In this case, the answer was no and the Court of Appeals overturned the trial courts decision.

Here is my final thought. I'd be willing to bet, as seen in the two cases above, that you will find some trial courts who will enforce the "overnight guests" portion of the order. However, I was unable to find any appeals court that affirmed the ruling of the trial court. That's not to say it hasn't happened, I'm just saying that out of all of the cases I read, this clause was eradicated at the appeals court level. Essentially, what you will probably find is that it's the exception, not the rule, where the "overnight guest of the opposite sex" portion of the order is enforced.

*NOTE* - I read through a lot of cases that dealt with the "overnight of the opposite sex" thing. Most really didn't apply to my post and that's why I didn't include them. One interesting thing I noticed, out of all of the cases I read, the majority were in the South Eastern/South Central United States. Ahhh, the bible belt......
"Success depends on your backbone, not your wishbone"

Mommy has Borderline Personality Disorder? She's very difficult to deal with? Buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0056JX46W
dadmisseskids
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby Fatheroffour » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:19 pm

I love my state.

Good job on the homework, DMK.

New Gf?
“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”― Mark Twain
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 28788
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby dadmisseskids » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:26 pm

Fatheroffour wrote:Good job on the homework, DMK.
Thanks. It took way longer than I wanted but it should help some guys have a better understanding of what to expect when this clause is in their orders.
Fatheroffour wrote:New Gf?
Not really. Just a "friend."
Fatheroffour wrote:I love my state.
dadmisseskids wrote:"Look, if a parent wants to fu*k, let them. As long as it's not being done in front of the kids, who cares!"
I figured you'd like that :wink:
"Success depends on your backbone, not your wishbone"

Mommy has Borderline Personality Disorder? She's very difficult to deal with? Buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0056JX46W
dadmisseskids
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby Fatheroffour » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:34 pm

My attorney told me during our first meeting that you don't lose your right of free association just because you have kids.

Thank you ACLU.
“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”― Mark Twain
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 28788
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby spritom » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:26 am

Good homework stuff. I haven't checked the Shepherds here in AZ, but the dads I know that have tried to enforce such a clause in the past few years here get nowhere at the first step with the court.
New to all this? Read The List
TAC (The Acronym List)
Short-short version of what to do

跟猴子比丟屎
User avatar
spritom
Moderator
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:28 pm
Location: US

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby finallyhappyhere » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:42 pm

How would someone go about finding info like this for VA?
finallyhappyhere
10+ Posts
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:31 pm

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby Trevor » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:45 pm

Um...Google divorce overnight guests virginia for starters.
"Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth."
Trevor
Moderator
 
Posts: 18740
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:55 pm

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby MMF » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:54 pm

Mine says no overnights for the boys with ANYONE while they're in their mother's care... hehehehehe... nothing about me!
I've lost many battles, but I will win the war.
MMF
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:59 pm

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby Fatheroffour » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:00 pm

We had a poster that was hanging his hat on cohabitation as a change of circumstance and was headed to court over the issue several months ago. Unfortunately he never reported back.

Arkansas is still a societal throwback in many respects but I found this.



https://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/20 ... 06-110.pdf

It is obvious that [appellant] has purposefully chosen to ignore what appears to be a clear caveat by the Court regarding cohabitation outside of marriage. A non-cohabitation order is not imposed merely to monitor a parent’s sexual conduct, but is instead intended to promote a stable environment for the children. Arkansas’ appellate courts have steadfastly upheld lower courts’ orders that prohibit parents from allowing romantic partners to stay or reside in the home when the children are present. These courts have never condoned a parent’s promiscuous conduct or lifestyle when such lifestyle has been in the presence of a child. Trial courts continue to hold that cohabitation without the benefit of marriage is an important factor in considering what is in the best interest of the child and extra-marital cohabitation has never been condoned, as it is contrary to the public policy of promoting a stable environment for children.

However, even with all that said I do not believe the court would have changed custody without all the other detrimental factors to the child in the case and I believe that is embodied by this statement by the court.



[Appellant’s] lack of residential, employment, financial and moral stability manifests an overall lack of stability in Zachary’s life warranting a change of custody.
“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”― Mark Twain
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 28788
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: Overnight "guests" and how courts view this clause in or

Postby Fatheroffour » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:00 pm

miamorefreckles wrote:Mine says no overnights for the boys with ANYONE while they're in their mother's care... hehehehehe... nothing about me!



And as long as she doesn't fight it..........


Otherwise........
“The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”― Mark Twain
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 28788
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Next

Return to Parenting - Child Custody Forum and Child Support Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests