Texas judge says lesbian couple can't cohabitate

[jimnyc]

Sure, it's unfair and unconstitutional. But if a couple gets divorced, and 2 children are with Dad at the time, and he's having various ladies over, in front of the kids, people would obviously say it's detrimental to the children. There is NOTHING wrong with this law. Their beef is with the gay marriage laws, not this one. But since they can't get married, now they'll blame this law, which solely protects kids, regardless of genders. My advice to them - fight to get the marriage laws changed, not to change what is or isn't allowed in the house with children in a divorced family.

MCKINNEY, Texas - 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.

The Dallas Morning News ( http://dallasne.ws/16MlSUQ) reported that in a divorce hearing last month for Carolyn and Joshua Compton, Collin County District Judge John Roach Jr. enforced the terms detailed in their 2011 divorce papers. He ordered Carolyn Compton's partner, Page Price, to move out of the home they shared with the Comptons' two daughters, ages 10 and 13. The judge gave Price 30 days to find another place to live.

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."

The Comptons had been married for 11 years before their split. Carolyn Compton originally filed for divorce in September 2010.

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.

Price and Carolyn Compton said in a statement that they believe the clause is unconstitutional. But they also said they would comply with the order "even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children."

They also said in the statement that the clause "is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/208406411.html

[Missileman]

Sure, it's unfair and unconstitutional. But if a couple gets divorced, and 2 children are with Dad at the time, and he's having various ladies over, in front of the kids, people would obviously say it's detrimental to the children. There is NOTHING wrong with this law. Their beef is with the gay marriage laws, not this one. But since they can't get married, now they'll blame this law, which solely protects kids, regardless of genders. My advice to them - fight to get the marriage laws changed, not to change what is or isn't allowed in the house with children in a divorced family.



http://www.startribune.com/nation/208406411.html

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

[Kathianne]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

Actually my divorce decree prohibited just that. Pretty standard issue. Didn't stop my ex, however his behavior did land him with a year of no unsupervised visitation, when demonstrated that said behavior caused 'precocious sexual behaviors,' in not one, but two children. The third child testified to being uncomfortable being with father.

[jimnyc]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

It was an example. The point is, these things have been being used and legal for many, many years. A couple have a child, or children, and it's simply not good for the kid to see one of their parents getting warm and fuzzy with someone else, in another home, who they aren't married to. I think it is protecting the kids, and good for them. The state may not have a business in the bedroom, but they have always had a business of trying to protect children, especially so in divorced families. I can verify this first hand based on counselors and state people visiting us 4 kids when my parents got divorced. They seemed less interested in their divorce and much more interested in the well being of us kids. Any divorce case I have ever monitored, where kids were involved, the courts tended to almost always think of the kids first and their well being, long before the desires of the parents.

I wouldn't say 'illegal' necessary, but then again it is - that's exactly what the judge ruled. that he doesn't want an unmarried couple, with kids involved, having romantic partners spending the night. While this case is forcing the woman to leave, if you read, it states:

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.

So in a sense, it IS preventing people from having romantic sleepovers. But in this case, they changed their sleepover into permanent conditions.

[jimnyc]

Actually my divorce decree prohibited just that. Pretty standard issue. Didn't stop my ex, however his behavior did land him with a year of no unsupervised visitation, when demonstrated that said behavior caused 'precocious sexual behaviors,' in not one, but two children. The third child testified to being uncomfortable being with father.

I'm reading more on it now, and it's seems like common sense to me, but more importantly it does seem to be standard in some places. Take all the legalities aside. You have 2 parents, 45 years old apiece. You have 2 kids, one 5 and one 6, one boy and one girl. Shit happens and couples get divorced. But the kids should still be raised appropriately, and hopefully with morals and such. While I know it's happening less and less, I would still teach my children that they should wait till they are married before living together. What we teach our kids, what we think is best for them, doesn't go out the window when divorces happen.

I'd like to hear more about the divorce and how it was handled. If it were in the divorce papers, both parents likely agreed to it in the best interest of the kids.

[BillyBob]

In a free society the government would never presume to dictate to the citizenry who they can and cannot sleep with.

[jimnyc]

In a free society the government would never presume to dictate to the citizenry who they can and cannot sleep with.

In THIS case, I don't think they are. I think they are dictating that they shouldn't be doing certain things, or being together for overnight visits, unless they are married. This is dictating what they think is in the best interest of the children, not dictating who they can sleep with. It's not like the judge said their relationship couldn't continue.

If you really narrow it down, the judge is simply enforcing a contract that both parties and the courts agreed to.

[BillyBob]

In THIS case, I don't think they are. I think they are dictating that they shouldn't be doing certain things, or being together for overnight visits, unless they are married. This is dictating what they think is in the best interest of the children, not dictating who they can sleep with. It's not like the judge said their relationship couldn't continue.

If you really narrow it down, the judge is simply enforcing a contract that both parties and the courts agreed to.

If they agreed to it, then he certainly has the authority to enforce a contract.


But the government has no authority to dictate to parents how they will raise their children. I realize they would love to have that authority and often illegally take that authority.

[Kathianne]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

Unless they want to allow for ex to have true sole custody with no visitation, they do have cause. It's not up to the ex to find this stuff, but it is up to the courts to protect the children.

Shocker, kids do not want parents to divorce.

When one spouse wants out because of another love interest, the kids shouldn't be caught up in that. Whether hetero or homo. Kids just don't need that.

[jimnyc]

If they agreed to it, then he certainly has the authority to enforce a contract.

But the government has no authority to dictate to parents how they will raise their children. I realize they would love to have that authority and often illegally take that authority.

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion. But yeah, in this case, it states in the beginning of the article that this was in their divorce papers. A divorce is really nothing more than a contract. Whether they like it or not, or if we like it or not, it's a contract and the judge upheld that clause.

Parents need to have a clean home or apartment. They need to be able to provide food. They need to be able to provide appropriate bedding. These are all forms of 'raising' our children, but when a divorce occurs, the state often gets involved with things such as that to ensure the children are being cared for in BOTH homes.

Some of the stuff that my poor Mom went through, via the State when they got divorced, must have been humiliating, time consuming and just overall a pain in the ass. But these counselors and court people, they wanted 300% assurance that the kids came first and that life didn't change too awfully much for us (if that's even possible). And for the same reason as this article, and simply because it was good for us kids, my Dad's new girlfriend/fiancee/wife never stayed at the home, until after they were married.

[Kathianne]

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion. But yeah, in this case, it states in the beginning of the article that this was in their divorce papers. A divorce is really nothing more than a contract. Whether they like it or not, or if we like it or not, it's a contract and the judge upheld that clause.

Parents need to have a clean home or apartment. They need to be able to provide food. They need to be able to provide appropriate bedding. These are all forms of 'raising' our children, but when a divorce occurs, the state often gets involved with things such as that to ensure the children are being cared for in BOTH homes.

Some of the stuff that my poor Mom went through, via the State when they got divorced, must have been humiliating, time consuming and just overall a pain in the ass. But these counselors and court people, they wanted 300% assurance that the kids came first and that life didn't change too awfully much for us (if that's even possible). And for the same reason as this article, and simply because it was good for us kids, my Dad's new girlfriend/fiancee/wife never stayed at the home, until after they were married.

Funny thing, when 'cheating' is involved, seldom is the cheater the one with the kids. The only time the 'cheater' needs to curtail extra behaviors is when the kids are visiting.

That may not have been the case with the lesbian couple, but seems the male in the equation had been blindsided, what to do with that?

[BillyBob]

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Yes it is. As a homeschool parent [or just a parent] I would enjoy a discussion about that very subject. If that is something that interests you, start a thread and I'd be an active participant.

[fj1200]

I'm reading more on it now, and it's seems like common sense to me, but more importantly it does seem to be standard in some places.

It seems to me that the clause could be removed if it's against public policy. Long-term cohabitation is different than a one-night stand.

[jimnyc]

It seems to me that the clause could be removed if it's against public policy. Long-term cohabitation is different than a one-night stand.

Perhaps, but I don't think they challenged the clause, but rather the father went to court for enforcement. And being it's Texas, I don't think it's against their policy. But suppose you are the one fighting the clause, how do you present your case to the court? You cant argue for long term cohabitation if you haven't even lived with someone at all yet. You technically can't have the overnights, as it's ruled against, or in the contract. I think the only way is to either be married, or fight the constitutionality of the clause itself. Considering the way courts bend over backwards to protect kids, I am doubting they would rule in their favor. I still say their best bet is to go after gay marriage. Or maybe not enter contracts that forbids the sleepovers prior to marriage!

[fj1200]

Perhaps, but I don't think they challenged the clause, but rather the father went to court for enforcement. And being it's Texas, I don't think it's against their policy. But suppose you are the one fighting the clause, how do you present your case to the court? You cant argue for long term cohabitation if you haven't even lived with someone at all yet. You technically can't have the overnights, as it's ruled against, or in the contract. I think the only way is to either be married, or fight the constitutionality of the clause itself. Considering the way courts bend over backwards to protect kids, I am doubting they would rule in their favor. I still say their best bet is to go after gay marriage. Or maybe not enter contracts that forbids the sleepovers prior to marriage!

I don't like "constitutionality of the clause," it constitutionalizes (a new term I heard tonight on the PBS series about the Constitution) rights and I think we've Constitutionalized too many rights. I don't think they would necessarily need to go either of those routes to challenge it. A clause that is against public policy is invalid but that assumes things about TX and whether straight cohabitation is acceptable or whether the couple is just "shacking up" rather than some sort of long-term thing.