Divorced Dad Appeals Ban On Girlfriend When His Kids Stay

ClickonDetroit ^ | December 22, 2005 | AP

[mtbopfuyn]

But an ACLU official said the law violates the constitution by letting the state interfere with parents' relationships with their children.

The judge was speaking toward the girlfriend not the father, so how's that interfering with the father's relationship with his kids?

[peyton randolph]

Of course, if the mother decides to enter in to a lesbian relationship, there is a new-found constitutional right to do so that trumps all statutes.

[E Rocc]

The law is an anacronism and needs to be trashed. It's also a pretty good example of why we should be concerned about too much influence on our governments by the moralistas

The ACLU's right on this one.

-Eric

[Tax-chick]

Maybe being shacked up is a very important value that he wants to pass on to his children.

And what kind of person would sleep in her car, in Michigan, instead of getting a motel room for the night?

[btcusn]

I wonder if this law has ever been applied in the reverse, the mother can't have a live in boyfriend?
Jack

[mlc9852]

The standard is always "best interests of the child". I think the judge is right on this and it is often part of custody agreeements that the parent shall not cohabit with someone not related by blood or marriage. Pretty standard.

[indcons]

The ACLU is right about this case (though they are wrong about almost anything else).

[son of caesar]

yea sure thing, lol

[ShadowDancer]

I don't about any other divorce cases but in this one it applies across the board:

A judge ordered that both parents be prohibited from having overnight visitation with their children when they have unrelated overnight guests of the opposite sex.

[Wolfie]

A judge ordered that both parents be prohibited from having overnight visitation with their children when they have unrelated overnight guests of the opposite sex.

[ShadowDancer]

What if the mother were gay? The ruling only covers overnight guests of the same sex. That's a pretty big omission.

[GermanBusiness]

[The ACLU is right about this case (though they are wrong about almost anything else).]

I agree. The ACLU is, unfortunately, necessary...when they aren't defending serial killers and terrorists.

The ACLU was apparently needed when a woman was fired last year from a Virginia sherriff's office because she wasn't married to her live-in boyfriend. The sherriff liked her but she was "violating" some century old law that he felt he had to uphold. I'd like to hear how that case is going. When you start firing good Republicans because they aren't married to their opposite-sex housemate...BEFORE you fire actual liberals among your staff...that is a problem.

[InsureAmerica]

Photos? before I decide..

And remember, the aclu isn't perfect. mathematically speaking they are bound to take the correct position a percentage of the time. Think of 1000 monkeys at typewriters, would they eventually write some Shakespeare??

[mlc9852]

Why are they right?

[PeteB570]

Ditto to your post

[ShadowDancer]

Oooops, I meant opposite sex.

[InsureAmerica]

""Why are they right?"

Ostensibly based on this statement only, I would agree with their position. It does not take into account the hidden agenda, of course and the aclu does not apply this position equally to all.

"But an ACLU official said the law violates the constitution by letting the state interfere with parents' relationships with their children."

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If it is so important to the dad, quit shacking up or get married.

[Coldwater Creek]

The same kind of a person that lives like they are married, but are not.!!!!!