Texas, Jake

How’s this for a catch 22:

A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can’t live together because of a morality clause in one of the women’s divorce papers.

The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision — but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren’t recognized.

This is another one of those laws in which both rich and poor are enjoined from sleeping under bridges:

[Texas District Court Judge] Roach said the clause doesn’t target same-sex couples, adding that the language is gender neutral.

“It’s a general provision for the benefit of the children,” the judge said.

Cassatt_Mary_Jules_Being_Dried_by_His_Mother_1900

And, of course, the husband’s attorney talks the same line — we’re only in it for the kids:

Paul Key said his client, Joshua Compton, wanted the clause enforced for his kids’ benefit.

“The fact that they can’t get married in Texas is a legislative issue,” Key said. “It’s not really our issue.”

Just remember:  the state can’t touch our guns (or require tornado shelters) because of freedom…but adults’ private decisions about whom to love must suffer the full brunt of state power.

Feh.

Image: Mary CassattJules Being Dried by His Mother1900.

 

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

78 replies
  1. 1
    BGinCHI says:

    Tom, if morality was virtuous Nietzsche would have been a pastor like his old man.

  2. 2
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    The state can also take your kids at the drop of a hat, especially if you’re FLDS, because Roman Grant Warren Jeffs is obviously a creep.

    Obviously, children and freedom are incompatible.

  3. 3
    dmsilev says:

    Conservative small government: Building codes, no. Bedroom codes, yes.

  4. 4
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    The morality clause is invasive shit regardless of whether it’s a heterosexual relationship or homosexual relationship. It’s dumb invasive shit based on an authoritarian basis of morality, like the stupid ‘anti-cohabitation’ laws in places like Virginia.

    @dmsilev:
    This is the kind of backhanded shit that infuriates me. Apparently, regulations against how a business operates, or anything involving guns is the worstest socialisms in ever. But if it involves legislating how an abortion clinic must have an exactly 93.2 inch hallway clearance, or how couples can’t live together because a divorce judge declared a woman a potential whore or deviant, then by all means, interfere away!!

  5. 5
    Tom Levenson says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey:

    Obviously, children and freedom are incompatible.

    Well, yeah — though not in the sense you perhaps mean. (stated as the father of a thirteen year old, who has in many enormously rewarding ways constrained my freedom.)

    PS: I recycled a dedication in my most recent book my father once used to offer up a book to his four children: “To X, for adding years to the writing, and joy to the years.”

  6. 6
    Shakezula says:

    Cases like this are how these damn laws get overturned.

  7. 7
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Shakezula:

    You’re assuming legislative sanity out of a place like Texas, or the current Supreme Court.

  8. 8
    NonyNony says:

    I actually hope that someone has the money to push this up the chain to the Supreme Court.

    Kennedy might suffer an aneurism trying to figure out where he’s supposed to stand on this one to be the reasonable moderate in the room.

  9. 9
    Mnemosyne says:

    Because I’m sure the ex-husband didn’t bring this lawsuit out of spite, no sirree. It was only because of his love for the law that he was forced to do it.

  10. 10

    Assuming I couldn’t get the hell out of Texas, I’d talk to my lawyer and see what loopholes I could exploit, like living in a duplex, renting a garage or attic ‘apartment’ to her partner for $1 a month or sending her ‘home’ at 11:55 pm, have her circle the block and then come back at 12:05 am.

  11. 11
    BGinCHI says:

    Kthug thumps the jackholes at TNR:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....-syndrome/

    Every time a TNR writer gets a paycheck they must wonder when the cops are going to show up to arrest them for fraud.

  12. 12
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Love of the law and the chill’ins. Cuz you know the children will have issues if their mom lives with someone other than their biological dad. You know. Because their mom such a potential dirty whore the law had to stop her. Love like that.

  13. 13
    Cassidy says:

    Ahh, yes, Texas. Once again reminding me why we didn’t let Mexico have that chunk of land in the first place.

  14. 14
    srv says:

    Only the Supreme Court can tell us what is moral or not.

  15. 15
    JDM says:

    Seems to me that the judge, by saying it’s gender neutral, just said that gay marriage has to be allowed in Texas. By order of his court decision.

  16. 16
    Mnemosyne says:

    @BGinCHI:

    I would personally use the phrase “knee-jerk contrarianism” rather than “counterintuitiveness,” but Krugman hits the nail on the head. Our insistence on the “both sides do it” style of journalism is killing us, because there’s always some idiot who decides to play “contrarian” and insist that, say, global warming doesn’t really exist or maybe the world really is flat — can we really be sure that it’s round? It’s counterintuitive to say that the Earth is flat, but who really knows?

  17. 17
    Cassidy says:

    The only thing missing is Corner Stone to come be an asshole because we don’t lurve us some Texas enough.

  18. 18
    aimai says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey: It was scarcely at the drop of the hat. Statutory rape and underage spirit marriage for the girls and abandonment for the boys would, actually, not fall under “best parenting practices” whatever the religious excuse.

  19. 19
    Amir Khalid says:

    Does the morality clause, as written, actually compel the judge to forbid the ex-wife and her partner from living together? I mean, does the judge have no leeway to let a cohabiting couple in a long-term relationship stay together?

  20. 20

    @Mnemosyne: Probably anger.

    If the divorce and custody battle were particularly bitter, his emotions are probably clouding his judgment.

    And he may have reason to be angry, but antagonizing your ex-wife will make sharing custody more difficult in the long run.

  21. 21
    TomG says:

    I had read that the clause was inserted BY THE JUDGE. Not saying the husband disagrees with the clause, but I think it was the judge’s idea originally, and yes, judges apparently do this frequently. Is that actually correct?

    Because of course, part of a judges’ duty is to force people to adhere to his or her personal notions of morality.

  22. 22
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Contrarianism will kill this country, and on the gravestone will be carved “AM NOT!”

  23. 23
    MattF says:

    Thought-experiment: Suppose the father had custody and his girlfriend stayed at his house overnight. Do you think he’d be the subject of a court order? Hint: Don’t overthink this one,

  24. 24
  25. 25
    Mnemosyne says:

    @TomG:

    It sounds like the judge made this ruling on the basis of the ex-husband’s complaint about his ex-wife living with her new girlfriend, so it’s not like the judge did his own investigation and discovered this was going on. So I’m sticking with my diagnosis of “spite.”

  26. 26
    Roger Moore says:

    @Shakezula:

    Cases like this are how these damn laws get overturned.

    Only in places where the outcome is considered undesirable. You can bet top dollar that the bigots in Texas will see this as a victory to be preserved, not an unfortunate consequence to be avoided.

  27. 27
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    Around here there are some judges that put a “no cohabitation” clause in probation conditions. There used to be a law in NC that made it a misdemeanor for two people of the opposite sex to live together if they weren’t married but me and my boss (and the ACLU) got it declared unconstitutional. Basically all these stupid laws will be struck down, it will just take time and someone willing to do the work to do it.

  28. 28

    @MattF: If he has that clause in his divorce/custody agreement and his wife was bitter/angry enough to invoke it, then I think so.

    It’s a stupid clause that allows for more acrimony and is basically one more weapon that you’re handing two people with children who have gone through a bad experience and are still dealing with negative emotions to use one another.

  29. 29
    gogol's wife says:

    Disgusting story.

    I hate to say it, but it’s Cassatt with two t’s.

  30. 30
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    People do tend to be pissed off when their partner leaves them for someone else, so the ex-husband may feel he has good reason to be angry (and he may feel that his ex “lied” to him by marrying him and then announcing that she’s gay), but this was still a very petty thing to do and it’s definitely not going to help any custody arrangements they may have. If I were his ex-wife, I would probably hire a private detective to monitor his house and run to the judge with my counter-complaint as soon as the ex-husband has an overnight lady visitor.

  31. 31
    ant says:

    I know of two hedero deals here in wisconsin whereby the new boyfriend can not live with the parent of the devorsee… Or can not sleep together when the kid (s) are over.

    Seems odd to me.

    Even people that like to fuck lots of other people make for good parents sometimes.

    Kids adapt and deal with the cards they are dealt. The hardest thing for a kid of divorced parents are when they fight, or make each other unhappy.

  32. 32
    Big R says:

    @MattF: Speaking as a divorce lawyer, he oughta be.

    Also speaking as a divorce lawyer, probably not.

  33. 33
    MikeJ says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    And he may have reason to be angry, but antagonizing your ex-wife will make sharing custody more difficult in the long run.

    More likely he’s simply trying not to share custody.

  34. 34
    scav says:

    The publicity now attendent upon the kids in light of their parents marital fracas and the judge plus lawyer’s moral preening is also undoubtedly going to prove a net boon to their lives.

  35. 35
    BethanyAnne says:

    @Cassidy: Indeed. If I recall correctly, his favorite defense was “there are just as many assholes everywhere else!”

  36. 36
    TomG says:

    @Mnemosyne: Yes, I see you are correct. The first article I read 3 days ago had NOT mentioned the husband initially, which was what confused me.

  37. 37
    shortstop says:

    @gogol’s wife: Tom should really double-check every proper name before posting because he misspells so many. Fortunately, his writing has many more positive qualities.

  38. 38
    shortstop says:

    @Roger Moore: But there are appeals. All it takes is a couple with the right amount of perseverance, resources and righteous fury.

  39. 39
    Gex says:

    In thinking about this issue, I was thinking along the lines of how the problem is that the DOJ and benches are stuffed with Liberty University grads and others like them. That’s who’s been appointed by Republicans since the 80’s.

    Which really sucks for gays because the lower benches will be hostile towards us for a good long time.

    But the rich irony is that all this torture and drones stuff is ultimately the doing of the glibertarian douchebags that complain about those the most. Voting for tax cuts and not caring how the DOJ or benches will be filled in order to pass your fiscal platform brings you these sorts of results.

    Too bad glibertarians are too stupid to be able to understand a complex issue over the course of time so they can see how cause and effect work in real life and not just in their masturbatory thought experiments.

  40. 40

    In other news, the immigration bill passed the Senate Judiciary committee yesterday with elebenty amendments. However, Leahy dropped the amendment wherein same sex couples could sponsor their spouses for a green card.

  41. 41
    Aaron says:

    Take a trip, go to a marriage legal state during the week, come back to the texas court and say suck it, and cite to the Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution which requires states to accept each others legal actions. Let the assholes appeal that all the way to Scotus.

  42. 42
    Gian says:

    @MikeJ: no shared custody means he doesn’t pay child support and might even get paid child support.
    Money might be as big a motive as spite

  43. 43
    Tom Levenson says:

    @gogol’s wife: @shortstop:

    Fine, haters. ;)

    You got your extra “t”

    Happy now?

    Yeah, I do suck at spelling. But thanks for the backhanded compliment embedded in your noting that fact.

  44. 44
    Len says:

    During the last legislative session, Rick Perry vetoed a bill that outlawed texting while driving in Texas because it violated personal freedom. Who you share your bed with at night (or who you choose to love or marry) is not a personal freedom. Personal freedom in Texas is what the Republicans say it is. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Then there’s stuff like this. Makes me sad.

  45. 45
    Chris says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    This is the kind of backhanded shit that infuriates me. Apparently, regulations against how a business operates, or anything involving guns is the worstest socialisms in ever. But if it involves legislating how an abortion clinic must have an exactly 93.2 inch hallway clearance, or how couples can’t live together because a divorce judge declared a woman a potential whore or deviant, then by all means, interfere away!!

    “Interfering with the rich and powerful is bad. Interfering with the little people is cool.”

    It fits the conservative devotion to hierarchy perfectly. And it has the approval of a ton of “little people” who, even if they’ll never be rich and powerful themselves, really like the idea of being deputized to police their neighbors.

  46. 46
    gogol's wife says:

    @Tom Levenson:

    I love your posts! And always the pretty piktchurs.

  47. 47
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    This is a case of the spurned dick being dickish for the sole reason of being dickish.

    His dick should be removed. He obviously can’t satisfy a woman with it.

    The judge is, after all, just following the law, no matter how dickish the law is.

  48. 48
    Chris says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Our insistence on the “both sides do it” style of journalism is killing us, because there’s always some idiot who decides to play “contrarian” and insist that, say, global warming doesn’t really exist or maybe the world really is flat — can we really be sure that it’s round?

    If only.

    There wasn’t a lot of “some people say” when it was about Iraq’s WMDs and ties to al-Qaeda. There wasn’t a lot of “some people say” when it came to the Bush tax cuts. There hasn’t been a lot of “some people say” about Benghazigate, IRSgate or APgate. When conservatives are married to a narrative, that narrative goes through with very little pushback.

  49. 49
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s counterintuitive to say that the Earth is flat, but who really knows?

    Well, we’ve got pictures. Taken from the moon, of all places.

    Anyone who insists the earth is flat needs to have their head flattened.

  50. 50
    peorgietirbiter says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Or the new lover is Ted Nugent’s sister and the ex has a real concern. There’s usually three sides to these stories but the absurdity of the law is clear.

  51. 51
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @peorgietirbiter:

    That’s possible, of course.

    But my inclination is that the most probable scenario is the spurned man getting his revenge on the woman who rejected him…not for another man, mind you, but for another woman.

    Ouch, my balls! You’ve cut them off, beeyotch!

  52. 52
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    @aimai:

    It was scarcely at the drop of the hat. Statutory rape and underage spirit marriage for the girls and abandonment for the boys would, actually, not fall under “best parenting practices” whatever the religious excuse.

    Uh huh:

    Responding to a mandamus filing by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, the Third Court of Appeals held the state’s Department of Child Protective Services didn’t establish that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily by taking them from their families on an emergency basis…

    It also says the record doesn’t show that child welfare officials made “any reasonable effort … to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children.”

    It appears from the opinion that specific evidence of sexual abuse was lacking concerning many, most or even all of the teenage FLDS girls who have reached puberty. A total of five became pregnant between age 15 and 17, the opinion says, but it cites a lack of evidence about the circumstances involved and their marital status at the time.

    I remember when this happened. On the basis of one anonymous tip (that later turned out to be false), CPS removed 400 children from their homes without investigating whether any of the claims had any merit. But these were FLDS families, so obviously it was justified; after all, we’ve all watched “Big Love”.

    Touch our goddamned guns, though…

  53. 53
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Len:

    During the last legislative session, Rick Perry vetoed a bill that outlawed texting while driving in Texas because it violated personal freedom.

    This is the height of stupidity. None of these assholes get that your personal freedom is not unlimited. If it were, we wouldn’t bother to prosecute murders, because we all have the personal freedom to end someone else’s life if we perceive that they are looking at us the wrong way (see the SYG laws, which basically amount to that).

    People with this sort of attitude need to undergo major attitude readjustment therapy. I suggest a clue by four. With a nail in it.

  54. 54
    peorgietirbiter says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: If I were making book, your theory would be the odds on favorite. Nevertheless…

  55. 55
    Mojotron says:

    The husband is a worthless piece of shit who hired a private investigator to follow his ex-wife and asked the court to fine and jail her over this “breach”: Joshua Compton reportedly went to court to enforce the morality clause after hiring a private investigator to spy on his ex-wife….Roach (the judge) reportedly rejected Joshua Compton’s attempt to have his ex-wife held in contempt, fined and jailed for each of the 181 alleged violations of the morality clause.

  56. 56
    Todd says:

    LGBT sparkle ponies are overabundant on this thread.

    Clearly, everybody here would be thrilled if their spouse moved out, immediately took up with somebody they were screwing, and set up immediate overnight visits amidst all the new sexytime.

    Or perhaps the ex has a string of nameless bed partners, giving the 7 year old a glimpse of good times.

    Been doing this nearly 25 years. Shit gets murky.

  57. 57
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Todd:

    Clearly, everybody here would be thrilled if their spouse moved out, immediately took up with somebody they were screwing, and set up immediate overnight visits amidst all the new sexytime.

    So the scorned spouse is entitled to set a private investigator on his ex and drag her back into court because his feelings are hurt?

    Yeah, that’s going to make co-parenting go oh-so-smoothly from now on. Who gives a shit about the kids as long as the ex-spouses can continue to fight on every possible occasion?

  58. 58
    Todd says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    There are all kinds of emotional upheavals that happen when housekeeping gets set up between wayward spouse and homewrecker. These clauses are generally good when enforced equally – the guidelines are crystal clear.

  59. 59
    Felanius Kootea says:

    @Todd: The woman has been with her partner *three years.* The husband was looking to have her *thrown in jail* for the morality clause violations but the judge wouldn’t go that far. He sounds pretty vindictive to me. I don’t know how having their mother in jail would have helped his kids in his view.

  60. 60
    peorgietirbiter says:

    @Mojotron: Thank Gawd it’s hard to get a gun down here. Sounds like a dangerous situation for the women.

  61. 61
    Todd says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Welcome to Family Court. Over 95% of my days involve assuaging deep emotional upheaval, mostly generated over petty grievances.

  62. 62
    Todd says:

    @Felanius Kootea:

    There’s an order and a perceived violation. That’s all most post decree litigants need if they’re aggrieved over some perceived slight.

    She could’ve taken up with Ghandi, and the result would be the same.

  63. 63
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    @Todd:

    If his ex-wife could marry her new partner, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

    The problem isn’t the morality clause itself; it’s the fact that a same-sex couple cannot ever satisfy it as long as same-sex marriage is not recognized in TX. This woman cannot maintain custody of her child and live with her new partner, no matter how loving or monogamous the new partnership is. However, if she had an abusive, rage-addicted boyfriend, she could marry him and satisfy at least that part of the clause.

  64. 64
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    @Todd:

    If his ex-wife could marry her new partner, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

    The problem isn’t the morality clause itself; it’s the fact that a same-sex couple cannot ever satisfy it as long as same-sex marriage is not recognized in TX. This woman cannot maintain custody of her child and live with her new partner, no matter how loving or monogamous the new partnership is. However, if she had an abusive, rage-addicted boyfriend, she could marry him and satisfy at least that part of the clause.

  65. 65
    cvstoner says:

    Sounds like one more reason to encourage Texas to secede…

  66. 66

    considering that Safe Rooms are likely to be quite a little profit center for home builders, i am a little surprised they DON’T want to see them mandated.

    Perhaps they figure once everybody has to include them in their construction costs, the profit will start to evaporate. Kind of like has happened with sprinkler systems.

  67. 67
    BethanyAnne says:

    @Todd: My general impression is that Family Court is almost a perfect storm of fucked-up-ness. You’ve got upset people negotiating about the things in their lives that matter the most to them. And I’d guess that lots of times the parties have failed at all other negotiations about the problems, so now they are having to go through layers of professionals to resolve things. That would add problems even assuming smart, wise and caring officials. Plus, I remember that some of the judges there were fucked up enough that a group formed to vote them out about 20 years ago. I remember being handed lists of judges to vote against as I went to vote in Houston.

  68. 68
    Todd says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey:

    And we finally have an appropriate and correct observation. Sometimes, the sparklepony lens will obscure the obvous.

    I saw this happen a couple of years ago when an otherwise competent lawyer got in a jam at the end of a surrogate pregnancy where a woman was having a child for a gay couple. The lawyer was so caught up in the wonderfulness of it all that she failed to notice how the seemingly neutral adoption statutes intersected with Kentucky’s ban on gay marriage. I helped patch everything up some, but you could never have anything approaching an ideal result, inasmuch as surrogate would always be on the birth certificate. It has huge implications down the line with regard to her estate.

  69. 69
    Todd says:

    @BethanyAnne:

    My general impression is that Family Court is almost a perfect storm of fucked-up-ness. You’ve got upset people negotiating about the things in their lives that matter the most to them. And I’d guess that lots of times the parties have failed at all other negotiations about the problems, so now they are having to go through layers of professionals to resolve things. That would add problems even assuming smart, wise and caring officials. Plus, I remember that some of the judges there were fucked up enough that a group formed to vote them out about 20 years ago. I remember being handed lists of judges to vote against as I went to vote in Houston.

    Yup – you understand it well.

  70. 70
    Shortstop says:

    @Todd:

    And we finally have an appropriate and correct observation

    …which was made in the original post, Einstein. No one minds the snark, but you do look foolish when you fling it around without having earned it.

  71. 71
    Todd says:

    @Shortstop:

    …which was made in the original post, Einstein. No one minds the snark, but you do look foolish when you fling it around without having earned it.

    Actually, the original post was dismissive of both the judge’s statement and dad’s lawyers’ quote, followed by predictable howls of outrage on the thread over the morals clause itself because it impacts sexual relationships of any kind, and particularly same sex relationships.

    Turbulent, emotional disputes are what Family Court is about. Most family court judges require some bright line rules for predictability and stability; they want to avoid having every three ring circus turn into a five ring circus with multiple witnesses coming in to give character-trashing testimony about how awful/great one parent or the other is, what shitbags/saints they’re now fucking, and why the kids hate/love the new boyfriend/girlfriend. These moral clauses cut way back on the drama, thereby making all of us in the system extremely happy.

  72. 72
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    I alluded to a problem with such “morality clauses” in my response to Todd – there’s nothing preventing the woman from marrying a truly scummy guy and satisfying that part of the clause, even though the situation in the house and risk to the children would actually be worse. Presumably the ex-hub would have other legal avenues to pursue if there was evidence of real risk.

    By that same token, it sort of bolluxes up any follow-on relationships; you could be in a safe, loving, committed, monogamous, healthy relationship, but having already been divorced not want to take it to the next step (or not be able to, as in this case). So you have to choose between maintaining custody and moving on to a new (and possibly better) relationship.

  73. 73
    Todd says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey:

    By that same token, it sort of bolluxes up any follow-on relationships; you could be in a safe, loving, committed, monogamous, healthy relationship, but having already been divorced not want to take it to the next step (or not be able to, as in this case). So you have to choose between maintaining custody and moving on to a new (and possibly better) relationship.

    It makes for some hard choices. I will say that the majority of the time, the funtime, sexytime takes place when the kids aren’t home. A relationship develops, and smart parents take time to integrate the new “other” into family life. In post-decree cases, probably 75% of the time, everybody winds up being happy with the new setup (provided that there’s a respectful lead time and that the new “other” isn’t a poisonous, divisive mutant intent on making life hell on earth for the person who they deem as having mistreated/scorned/tortured their wonderful new bed partner).

    That other 25% of the time is when it sucks ass, and is what lawyers and judges hate with the searing white hot passion of 1000 suns.

    Example: Stepmonster comes into office with nice (if really, really OCD) new husband. There’s heavy conflict, most of which was generated by the relationship between stepmonster and biomom. Stepmonster refuses to see why her intrusion into issues of support and commentary to biomom about parenting is poisoning the well. Stepmonster gets really mad when it is pointed out that an 11 year old girl has clearly expressed a preference that she go to sexuality training with her biomom as opposed to stepmonster – stepmonster insisted that it was her right and prerogative because the training was occurring during dad’s time. Dad, for all his faults, was siding with biomom on that.

  74. 74
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Todd:

    It makes for some hard choices.

    The choice for gay parents in Texas seems to be chastity and nothing else. Which, again, was kind of the original point — there is NO option for gay parents in Texas that will satisfy the morality clause. None. I’m pretty sure that a guy who’s pissed off that his ex-wife is a lesbian isn’t going to be mollified by any “careful” introduction of a new partner.

  75. 75
    Tom_B says:

    They should get hitched in another state, then go back to the judge and say they did the best they could, given the backward status of Texas law.

  76. 76
    gelfling545 says:

    @ant: I personally know of a case here “even in liberal NY” were the boyfriend of the ex wife is specifically prohibited from being on the premises when the children are with her. This is, however, based on what is known (& on record) about the character, morals & habits of the particular boyfriend and doesn’t exclude anybody else.

  77. 77
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    Seriously? Being in an adult relationship, straight or gay, is “immoral” in this day and age?

    “Oh no, your honor, I would never have a friend over overnight for sex while the kids are at home. I’m too busy masturbating to Catholic schoolgirl porn and sniffing the kids panty drawers.”

  78. 78
    drkrick says:

    I’ve read elsewhere that these clauses are increasingly rare in Texas, especially in more urbanized counties, and that this one is quite likely not to survive the state appeals process. To the extent the husband’s request for 180+ contempt citations makes it into the appeals record, it should be a pretty good example of why that would be a good thing.

Comments are closed.