Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    [as a married, childless woman...]
    
    I think that the ruling is ludicrous.  I don't think it should apply
    to men _or_ women.
    
    If a parent is comfortable in the moral example s/he sets, I don't
    see an overnight guest as causing harm to the child.  Having a parent
    with sexual needs is not deviant.
    
    If the parent is _un_comfortable with the example set by having an
    overnight guest, I believe that harm could occur.  Having a parent
    ashamed to acknowledge sexual needs can cause problems. 
    
    Also, were the ruling to apply _only_ to divorced women it would
    also be discriminatory to the extent that it applies to only one
    sort of single parent.  Not all single parents ever _were_ married,
    regardless of gender.

      Ann

    
    One of my best friends has never been married but has a beautiful,
    bright almost-three-year old son (Can you tell I'm the Godmother??)
    
    I thank God she never married the father, or gave her son his name.
    
    She is now blissfully happy with the man of her dreams, and they
    just bought a house together and moved in as a big happy family.
    They are together, but are not planning to get married for at least
    a couple of years.  She and her son are happier than I have ever
    seen them, and you just can't wipe the smiles from any of their faces.
                                                 
    
    This is wrong?
    
    Yes, they do share a bedroom, if that is going to be a question;^)
    She is 21 he is 27.
    
    Dilly

    
    Custody battles are never pleasant, and the legal 'solutions' are
    often like Solomon's Sword.
    
    On the face of it the decision in .0 sounds odd, even discriminatory,
    but is it? Would it still sound discriminatory if the father had
    disputed the mother's custody, perhaps even sought to deny all
    visitation rights, on some basis relating to putative promiscuity? In 
    that case perhaps the judge's decision comes down to this: "You say
    you aren't promiscuous, and that hence you are a good mother. I'll
    give you the benefit of the doubt, but should it ever happen that you ... 
    then I will have to review the custody on the basis that your
    ex-husband's claims had validity after all..."
                                       
    /. Ian .\    

re .0

>	Do you agree or disagree?!

	I agree that it violates a person's freedom of lifestyle.

>	Does this limit to woman only?  

	Hard to say without reading the opinion of the court, but the
	way you reported it implies it does.

>	Should man follow the same rule?

	It the rule is to exist, it should apply to both men and women.


	Note 1: This ruling discriminates on the basis of sexual preference,
		because no similar prohibition is made for overnight guests
		of the same sex.

	Note 2:	Having an overnight guest of opposite gender does not imply
		the guest will share the same bedroom as the host. Having an 
		the guest share a bedroom does not imply they will sleep in the
		same bed. Having the guest sleep in the same bed does not
		imply sex will take place. Having sex take place does not
		imply that either participant is an unfit parent.

								Tom_K

    Simply put, I disagree.  I doubt that it is constitutional, and
    wonder upon what basis the judge (Is the judge male or female?)
    has based this decision.  It would be interesting to know...
    
    Barb

    
    I'd like to know what the actual ruling by the judge was (as
    opposed to the reporter's interpretation) and the facts of the
    case.  As written in 496.0, the ruling is totally contrary to
    virtually every other ruling I've seen.  Generally, unless
    there is evidence that sexual activity is taking place in front
    of the child, the court's will not impose restrictions on the
    custodial parent's right to have overnight guests or even a
    live-in partner.

    I read about this in the Boston Globe last week.  The case took
    place in Rhode Island.  As I recall, the wife had taken the husband
    back to court to get an increase in child support.  He countered
    by taking her to court to stop her from having her boyfriend stay
    overnight.  The boyfriend was always fully clothed in front of the
    child, and was usually wearing a jogging suit or street clothes
    -- never strolling around in a towel or bathrobe.  Their room was
    in a separate area of the house (I picture having the bedrooms
    on opposite ends of the floor). 
    
    The judge ruled that the mother could not have overnight guests
    of the opposite sex in the house when the child was present, and
    he (the judge was a man to answer a previous question) said that
    this did not mean she could never have her boyfriend stay over,
    just not when the child was there, so if the child was with the
    father, she could have the boyfriend stay over.
    
    I thought it was odd that the paper did not say what the judge ruled
    on the original issue which was the increased child support, unless
    that got bogged down in the ex-husband's case.  
    

    Re: .7
    
    In other words, choose between your child and your boyfriend when
    you have some free time to spend with someone.  Ducky.  The ex-husband
    sounds like a real jerk and the judge doesn't sound much better.
    I doubt it will be left standing, for if it did, it would set an
    extremely dangerous precedent.  I'm sure there's some advocacy group
    that would be more than happy to take this one on.

    The state's interference with our (collective) right to rear our
    children is continually amazing to me.  I am a single parent.  So
    was my ex for a number of years.  (We had joint physical custody,
    week-on and week-off.)  He has now remarried and has infants from 
    his second marriage.  How in the world anyone can try and build
    a new, more stable relationship and not have the new partner spend
    at least occasional nights *as a member of the family* is beyond
    me.  The hypocrisy inherent in a decision such as this is overwhelming.
    I only hope that the father ends up under similar orders - and a
    fairly long period of time with the kid so that he can find out
    what it's really like.
    
    Alison
    

Looks like the net left this hanging. Was .8.
	Mez

================================================================================
HICKRY::HOPKINS "Hugs for Health"                     0 lines  13-MAR-1989 15:12
                         -< I think this was on Oprah >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I saw this story on Oprah (I think) last week.  The mother had a
    boyfriend living with her, it wasn't just a "drop in" boyfriend
    AND the father had different women living with him at different
    times.  But... now he's finally married one of them.  BIG DEAL!
    It sounds to me like the old "I'm gonna make her life miserable
    just for kicks" routine to me.  GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR  I'm still steaming
    over this one.  He's got nerve, I'll say that!
                  
    Marie
    

    Is fornication  legal in Rhode Island? If not, the judge is saying
    that  you  can't have the appearance of an illegal act in front of
    the  child.  I  don't like it, but if you believe that sex belongs
    only  in  marriage  (and  have that in your laws), then the ruling
    makes sense.

    As policy,  it's  crazy.  But it follows logically from one set of
    mores which is still considered to be the only acceptable rules by
    the people in power.

--David

    I heard an interview with the woman on NPR over the weekend. Apparently
    the father does not have any custody of the children, so he wouldn't
    have to live up to the no-overnight visitors standard. The father and
    mother lived together before getting married and had one child out of
    wedlock.  Does seem a bit ironic. The children are currently aged 10
    and 15. 

    As pointed out before, the woman has had this one male friend for
    several years.  The judge asked her if she intended to marry the
    man, she answered honestly "no".  She feels that if she had lied
    and said yes she would not have lost.
    
    The woman's lawyer doesn't want to the responsibility of taking the
    case to US supreme court for fear she might lose and set a far reaching
    precedent. 

    The case in Rhode Island was the topic of discussion last Friday
    on one of the Boston morning talk shows (I was getting my system
    at home fixed).  I wasn't sure of what the whole case was about,
    but from what I could gather the ex-wife had brought him to court
    for increase in support, he countered with no overnight boyfriends.
    His main objection was that he was paying all the bills.  He didn't
    mind paying for the kids, but he didn't like paying for the boyfriends
    meals, use of utilities, etc.  The husband had the children every
    weekend and once during the week, I believe, and the judge had said
    the boyfriend could stay those nights as the children weren't there.
    However, at present, from what was said, the husband has re-married
    and is not taking the children on weekends as he wants to spend
    time with his new wife so they can get to know each other.
    
    The show did not make the husband look at all good....just made
    him look like he was doing this to keep things stirred up.  It's
    the children I feel sorry for.
    
    P.