Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd love to see the Texas legislature pass a law that states all guns must have trigger locks installed, and every gun owner must own a gun safe to store any firearm in, in the best interests of a child. Because that's like a 4th part to paper/rock/scissors that beats all the other 3, and so Frazzled would hasten to defend such a law as making perfect sense, totally within the state interest, and hell, trigger locks and gun safes aren't even that expensive bros.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
If by "easily fixable" you mean they have to move to a less discriminatory state, I guess so, yeah.

Aha! Not so fast - guess what the divorce decree also says!

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you're right.

The issue is that the ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
The divorce was finalized in 2011, but a dispute was opened in April of this year about the child custody arrangement. Ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".

So again:
The husband was able to use this as a form of retaliation and protesting a child custody arrangement.

Oh yea. Don't doubt that, but blame the right law for the issue.

So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you're right.

The issue is that the ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
The divorce was finalized in 2011, but a dispute was opened in April of this year about the child custody arrangement. Ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".

So again:
The husband was able to use this as a form of retaliation and protesting a child custody arrangement.

Oh yea. Don't doubt that, but blame the right law for the issue.

The "right law" is the one which made a "morality clause" mandatory in divorce papers filed in that county.
The other part is the fact that the JUDGE chose to uphold the morality clause in this case, barring some kind of unstated issues with the wife's live in partner.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.

Hehe

 Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see the Texas legislature pass a law that states all guns must have trigger locks installed, and every gun owner must own a gun safe to store any firearm in, in the best interests of a child. Because that's like a 4th part to paper/rock/scissors that beats all the other 3, and so Frazzled would hasten to defend such a law as making perfect sense, totally within the state interest, and hell, trigger locks and gun safes aren't even that expensive bros.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
If by "easily fixable" you mean they have to move to a less discriminatory state, I guess so, yeah.

Aha! Not so fast - guess what the divorce decree also says!

Divorce decrees are changed all the time. I know.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.

Hehe

I was sincerely hoping it would take a few more posts before that was noticed.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.

Bingo! Sounds like a real winner there.

EDIT: You're good...real good!

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Also, goofy backwards legislature.

Wonder if there's an ordinance against discharging firearms into tumbleweeds.

What if you shoot your own couch...accidentally...

Hey man that couch had a knife.

Frazzled wrote:No it should absolutely be in place. Its designed to keep daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy and surprising the kid with drunko on his weekend visitations. Its absolutely correct.

Don't like it? Suck it. Best interests of the child.

So much for your claims to be a libertarian. Nanny state harder, Frazz.

I can't say that I'm thrilled how many community members are choosing to use this thread as a vehicle to attack another person, rather than discuss the issue

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't like it? Suck it. Best interests of the child.

Re-reading my original post it probably did not convey what I meant as well as it could have. Of course the child's best interests should be absolutely paramount. But in my opinion this clause should be applied in cases were there is evidence that the child's welfare is at risk, such as in the examples that you gave.


I do agree that this sort of circumstance is easily remedied, and that it does seem that a vindictive husband is engaging in some lawfare.

The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.

While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.

While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.

It takes two to tango.

Remember, there's a vindictive ex doing this.

Isn't the whole point of a state government is that if you don't like the way it is run you can vote to change the laws or move to a different state?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Isn't the whole point of a state government is that if you don't like the way it is run you can vote to change the laws or move to a different state?

You can move, yes.

The issue is you can't legally take your children with you.

And indeed, pointing out you-know-who's hypocrisy is sort of low-hanging fruit, so we should probably move back to the matter at hand.

As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.

It's unconstitutional.

I have to concur that it is a textbook equal protection issue.

 Ouze wrote:
I have to concur that it is a textbook equal protection issue.

Yep... there's actually several SC cases about this and I hope they do rule it that way.

Supreme Court still debating DOMA and haven't written their recommendation yet

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.

It's unconstitutional.

Its not. When it comes to "best interests of the children," a judge's leeway is remarkable. I know.
Now flame me all you want, but your hitting the wrong legal target. Its ok, I've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of my life in the "best interests of the children." One starts college in the fall. All things considered-mission accomplished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.

While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.

Agreed. I've not seen it before actually.

I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?

I hope she does the same when he tries to do it with someone.
Also, The State can enforce morality now?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?

I think the point is that the the divorced parent can absolutely have fun after the divorce. But it may not be the healthiest environment for the child if a string of casual partners are trotted home on a regular basis. If you want to have fun at least hire a baby sitter.

I think that is what Frazz was saying (although if I'm wrong I will stand corrected)

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?

They can spend the night. They can't cohabitate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hope she does the same when he tries to do it with someone.
Also, The State can enforce morality now?

Oh yea. The world turns in these cases pretty hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?

I think the point is that the the divorced parent can absolutely have fun after the divorce. But it may not be the healthiest environment for the child if a string of casual partners are trotted home on a regular basis. If you want to have fun at least hire a baby sitter.

I think that is what Frazz was saying (although if I'm wrong I will stand corrected)

Exactly.
Again, if her partner is worthy she will wait. If not, she wasn't worthy to begin with.

Solution. Break up with her and have her become a live in nanny for the kids

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Solution. Break up with her and have her become a live in nanny for the kids

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.

It's unconstitutional.

Its not. When it comes to "best interests of the children," a judge's leeway is remarkable. I know.
Now flame me all you want, but your hitting the wrong legal target. Its ok, I've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of my life in the "best interests of the children." One starts college in the fall. All things considered-mission accomplished.

The letter of the law is being exploited to defeat the spirit of the law.

It is discriminatory and, I'll repeat, represents government intruding on the personal affairs of citizens.

The law is also being applied without balance, if same sex marriage was allowed then there would be no problem, but the government of Texas won't allow gay marriage and makes no exception in this law, the two laws creating the situation of a denial of equality under the law for same sex couples.

This violates the 14th Amendment and denies these women the right to equal protection under law.

Texas is breaking the constitution.

The state of Texas is not renowned for looking after children in need, its practically a third world country in many respects.

Easy way to fix this really:

1) Have a Muslim couple get divorced.
2) Insert a morality clause claiming that somehow "Sharia Law" demands it.
3) Watch the good old boys get angry about them muslims
4) profit!

 d-usa wrote:
Easy way to fix this really:

1) Have a Muslim couple get divorced.
2) Insert a morality clause claiming that somehow "Sharia Law" demands it.
3) Watch the good old boys get angry about them muslims
4) profit!

Now thats capital thinking!