[Modernman]

No one is talking about taking a kid away, they are talking about restricting the right of the child's parent to TALK about an ex-lover's lifestyle.

Well, I'm not in favor of allowing one parent to turn their kid against the other parent. It puts the child into an impossible situation- mommy is telling the kid that daddy is a scumbag. You don't see a problem with that? Judges are supposed to look out for the best interests of the child- allowing parents to constantly badmouth the other parent is not a good thing for a kid.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...the other parent...

The other woman is NOT the child's parent.

She never adopted the child and she is not related to her.

As such, she should have NO legal rights regarding the child.

If she were a live-in boyfriend, that would be the ruling.

"Visitation rights" is not the same thing as "legally-enforced joint-custody," which is what that non-relative, non-adoptive person was awarded.

That judge is an idiot with an agenda who should be disbarred.

[netmilsmom]

>>Well, I'm not in favor of allowing one parent to turn their kid against the other parent<<

This is not the child's parent, first of all.
Second, do you have kids?
Third, I have a friend right now who divorced because of the father's constant risky behavior (taking his girls for rides on his Harley w/no helmets {against the law}, and losing them at biker rallies). Sorry but rock climbing does not compare to this. Should this mother not tell her children that it is not right to break the law and not safe to wander around alone in large crowds?
Should the mother never tell the child the risk, for fear of offending the father?

[Adder]

"Judges are supposed to look out for the best interests of the child- allowing parents to constantly badmouth the other parent is not a good thing for a kid."

That is not what the article says. It says that she cannot teach the child "homophobia" whatever that is. It is not a specific ruling against "bad-mouthing" the other person. It says "homophobia". It is saying that a certain belief system may not be given this child because this court knows better than the parent what is right.
That is where it crosses the line. Similar in scope to "You will not teach creationism, anti- semitism or racism." There simply is no basis for that sort of limit on the speech of the custodial parent.

[ArGee]

It puts the child into an impossible situation- mommy is telling the kid that daddy is a scumbag.

What if daddy is a scumbag? What if he is in prison for rape or murder? What if he used to beat the stuffing out of mommy on a regular basis.

In all your careful, reasoned response you have forgotten that homosexuality is wrong. It is the mother's moral duty to warn her child against it.

Shalom.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well, I'm not in favor of allowing one parent to turn their kid against the other parent.

She isn't a Parent

She isn't a Parent

She isn't a Parent

She isn't a Parent

She isn't a Parent

She was, at best, a shack up honey. She has no legal rights to the child.