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.

 Frazzled 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?

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

Again, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.

The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.

Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?

 Valion wrote:
Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?

It's usually the state... but, not sure with Texas. (it's different with each state too).

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.

I'm not so sure it is. I don't think the state has a vested interest in the details of the dating life of consenting adults unless and until there is a preponderance of evidence that there is an unsuitable home environment.

So she reno's her home and registers the upper floor as a seperate domicile for rent, her partner rents it.

Generally all it needs is a separate entrance and she's cool, and, if I'm thinking this through right, she could just sleep upstairs and have the child sleep downstairs, thus technically in two different homes, not breaking this law. Though I wonder if the lawyer would then press for abandonment as the mother is technically in a separate house and the child is being left alone.

And for the equal right thing towards MGS, it's not unequal as far as I'm aware, as it would apply to the father as well if he wanted a bunch of dudes knocking on his back patio while the children were about. The fact that he isn't gay and the wife is doesn't really play into the exact equality.

Ratbarf, how can you equate having your long-term girlfriend or boyfriend living in the house with having "a bunch of dudes" over?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.

I'm not so sure it is. I don't think the state has a vested interest in the details of the dating life of consenting adults unless and until there is a preponderance of evidence that there is an unsuitable home environment.

There's certainly a reasonable argument to be made there. I do think there's grounds for somewhat stricter standards and involvement when we're dealing with kids.

It was simply a poor attempt at humour, the point still stands though that the husband would not be allowed to have a homosexual parter stay while the child is in the house as well. Boom, gakky equality.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll say it again. Its quite specific. Its designed so that when daddy runs off and Jr. gets to come over for weekend visitation, the heroin addicted biker chick daddy fiddles with can't be living there.

But as soon as he marries the heoin-additcted biker chick, having her in the house is fine...? How does that protect the kids, exactly?

And, really, is blokes getting divorced and immediately shacking up with heroin-addicted biker chicks a big enough problem in Texas to be worth inconveniencing those people who are dating normal, well-adjusted, non-drug addicts?

But it is in the best itnerests of the child not to forcibly introduced to every peace of flotsam as "new mommy" every weekend.

Is it really, though?

Obviously, anecdote doesn't equal data, but my mother went through a string of partners between my father and the donkey-cave she eventually married... All of those partners combined had nowhere near the negative impact on me that the new husband did. In most cases, I just had nothing to do with them, so they had absolutely zero impact.

Let's avoid broad negative stereotypes about regions of the country, please. -Mannahnin

I think this is just basically a legal snafu and I think there are many facts and viewpoints to consider. One of the things I've always thought these morality clauses were about was money. The husband is probably still paying alimony. Now if his wife were straight she could not have her boyfriend stay in the house unless they got married, thus ending the original husbands alimony obligation. Now since they can't get married, he may be stuck paying her alimony forever (not sure what the law is in TX) even though she has a new partner.

If I was the husband and my ex wife was being cheeky by saying that she still wants alimony even though she has a new life partner, well, I guess I would probably do the same thing.

I can see the conversation.

W: Where is my Alimony?
H: Don't you have a new partner, you guys have been dating for years and she sleeps at the house?
W: I do, but we can't get Married, because it's illegal.....so where is my check?
H: Oh, you and your partner can't get married? Here is your check, tell them to get out of the house!

Not saying that this is the situation, but it could be.

Can't have it both ways people.

I can see it being unfair to someone, no matter what the outcome is. But since law has not caught up with the times, the law can only enforce what is there. This is what settlements are for.

 Frazzled wrote:
NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?

I can see the logic in it, when talking about a parent picking up a one night stand while the kids are staying over.

But to simply assume that any adult relationship is either a one night stand or a marriage, is, well, completely flying rodent gak crazy. Maybe a lot less crazy when this law was written, but right now its loco.

For there to be any kind of sanity to this law, you'd need to have judges drawing a line between "living together in a stable but not formally married relationship" and "random hook up with some bar skank", and no judge on Earth is going to want to make that distinction.

So the only sensible response, basically, is to dump this nonsense law. I mean hell, if there's a proven record of one partner hooking up with randoms while the kids are in the house there's already 'unfit environment for children' that can modify the parenting arrangement. This morality clause is just stupid law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm a virulent fan of child's best interest, dog.

I am as well. Well, I'm a fan, but not a virulent one... I think you might want to look up what that word means.

Anyhow, yes, absolutely, children's best interests, absolutely. But those best interests need to be laid out in a way that makes some sense, and pretending the world exists of random bar hookups with skanky hoes and marriages blessed by God, and nothing in between makes no fething sense at all.

The two times I got divorced I read every page. I request clause to be removed as did she. If your going to sign something of that importance thn you best know what the Hell your signing. My first wife agreed for me not to pay child support. She made more money then me as justification (she was a captain and I a lonely E5)
We also had that stupid cause in there like Texas. We both agreed to remove it. We also adding in my Post 9/11 GI Bill was to be transfered over to her for college.A college we both have to agree...she be going to UMASS like her mom

But to simply assume that any adult relationship is either a one night stand or a marriage, is, well, completely flying rodent gak crazy. Maybe a lot less crazy when this law was written, but right now its loco.

I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore. The classic answer to this is to then get married. But the gay couple can't, so the husband would still be on the hook.

Basically they are both screwed by circumstance and its time for them to sit at the big kids table and work out a new agreement until laws catch up. Until then, he still has to pay alimony to his wife, but her partner can't live there.........First world problems.

Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?

 Jihadin wrote:
Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?

I don't know, families are pretty messed up now, and homosexuality is not really that much of a stigma anymore....well depending on where you live I guess. If I had two gay parents and some kid tried to bust me on that, I'd probably just come back with "At least I have two parents, go say hi to deliveryman JR for me when you get home!" Trying to pick on people for their family situations is pretty hard now adays without getting caught in the crossfire.

 Jihadin wrote:
Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?

KIds ultimately get most of their prejudices from their parents. The sooner we stop treating same-sex couples like they're doing something shameful, the sooner kids will stop seeing it as weird.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore.

This clause doesn't address alimony at all. While the kids aren't in the house the person can sleep around with whoever, or continue a stable relationship with a new partner it won't impact any alimony requirement at all. Nor does it stop being applied if there is no alimony.

No, this is purely there for the welfare of the children. But because it's relic of another time, and also because it's Texas, the law doesn't see any kind of relationship between 'random hook up with some random that is a totally inappropriate situation for a child' and 'loving marriage blessed by God'. The idea of a happy, stable, de facto relationship just isn't considered. And that is terribly stupid law.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?

KIds ultimately get most of their prejudices from their parents. The sooner we stop treating same-sex couples like they're doing something shameful, the sooner kids will stop seeing it as weird.

Only once that happens will the laws catch up and close loopholes. Until then people have to learn to negotiate and compromise. Right now these people need to sit with attorneys and figure out the situation.Not being able to be married is unfair to the couple, on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore.

This clause doesn't address alimony at all. While the kids aren't in the house the person can sleep around with whoever, or continue a stable relationship with a new partner it won't impact any alimony requirement at all. Nor does it stop being applied if there is no alimony.

No, this is purely there for the welfare of the children. But because it's relic of another time, and also because it's Texas, the law doesn't see any kind of relationship between 'random hook up with some random that is a totally inappropriate situation for a child' and 'loving marriage blessed by God'. The idea of a happy, stable, de facto relationship just isn't considered. And that is terribly stupid law.

Whether you think it does or doesn't, doesn't really matter. Again, yes it is unfair that they can't marry, it's also unfair that she can have a partner and still collect alimony and child support just because she happens to be gay now. Remember this is not some state law, these are terms of a divorce she signed off on and agreed to. If she had a problem with them, she should have raised it then.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
... on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.

Is that actually happening, though? I don't recall alimony being mentioned in the original article.

 insaniak wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
... on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.

Is that actually happening, though? I don't recall alimony being mentioned in the original article.

I don't know if it is or isn't, but it could be. The divorce is recent and usually men pay alimony and child support, so there is a good chance he is still paying. That's why I could see him pressing his rights also. Divorce seams to bring the worst out of people, so maybe he is just being a Donkey cave to be a Donkey cave, maybe he doesn't like gay people, maybe he doesn't want to see his wife happy with anyone else, or maybe he just doesn't want to pay anymore. There are many reasons he could be doing this.

Not really my issue. She signed the paperwork, that's all that really matters. This is not some state law, these are legal divorce papers that they both agreed to.

If the story were more complete and stated that her husband was not paying alimony and childsupport, well then I would feel very badly for her.

This just reminds me of a lot of the section 8 cases I hear about where some unemployed mother with kids gets government housing and then lets her boyfriend move in. If housing finds out that he is living there they will pull her housing. Why should the government pay for her boyfriends housing? I know its a completely different situation, but it has echos.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Whether you think it does or doesn't, doesn't really matter. Again, yes it is unfair that they can't marry, it's also unfair that she can have a partner and still collect alimony and child support just because she happens to be gay now. Remember this is not some state law, these are terms of a divorce she signed off on and agreed to. If she had a problem with them, she should have raised it then.

First up, forget the lesbian bit for a second. Ignore whether or not they can get married. Instead just consider if the woman had entered in to a stable, long term relationship with another guy. It's still total fething bs that the only way they can continue that relationship while the children are visiting would be if that got married.

Because we've gotten to a point in society where we realised that defacto relationships exist, and they can work just fine for lots of people. Requiring a couple to wed before their relationship can be seen as a stable, positive force in a child's life is beyond ridiculous.


Second up, yes, she signed it, but it remains a state decision as to whether they will enforce it. There's all kinds of signed documents that courts won't enforce, either because they are manifestly unfair, or because they're extremely subjective, or because it simply isn't the kind of nonsense a court is willing to get engaged in. There is no reason why this clause can't be the kind of thing ... other than the fact that in Texas, no-one thinks it is stupid to consider all adult sexual relationships to be either 'lawful marriage' or 'slutting around in a way that children must not be allowed to see'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
If the story were more complete and stated that her husband was not paying alimony and childsupport, well then I would feel very badly for her.

Alimony I can understand.

But child support... if he is paying child support that doesn't change if she marries again. They're still his kids, and he should support them.

Unless the child is actually at risk, the parent's new partner shouldn't be an issue. The law and the father are being an ass.

According to what is described on this thread about these clauses, it's ok to have people spend the night but not cohabit. Thus the law allows for a revolving door of unknown people to be passing through the home but not for a stable relationship to establish. Yet these laws are being passed off in the name of 'child protection'? What a joke.

First up, forget the lesbian bit for a second. Ignore whether or not they can get married. Instead just consider if the woman had entered in to a stable, long term relationship with another guy. It's still total fething bs that the only way they can continue that relationship while the children are visiting would be if that got married.

Well again, its not a law, its an agreement that she made and many people make the same agreement, or ones like it. There is nothing wrong with it on its face. If the state were not to enforce it, than they are setting precedent.

If these two wanted to modify their divorce papers there is nothing stopping them from sitting with an attorney and modifying them. Of course that assumes that these are two rational people, which is pretty rare in these cases. There are arbitrators for these kind of situations.

I can understand your argument about relationships being different, but that's really a personal matter, much like divorce papers. These are the terms that one or both of them wanted and both of them signed off on. To have a judge change them would be like letting a judge just let the husband not pay alimony because the wife has a gay life partner, see the media storm that would come with that judgement.

I agree she can be in a relationship without being married, but when there are children it does get more complicated and something that was meant to be a safeguard can become a punishment, or both depending on your point of view. I'm not really big on courts getting in on family matters, if it gets that far the situation is usually pretty f'ed anyway.

The big problem in law comes with terms and definitions. So while she can be in a relationship she is not married and only remarrying ends the first husbands obligations to her. Hell if the law allowed husbands to stop paying alimony once their ex wives were in a relationship then we might have an argument. But it would appear that the terms of the agreement require remarriage.

Alimony I can understand.

But child support... if he is paying child support that doesn't change if she marries again. They're still his kids, and he should support them.

Oh and yes you should always support your children. The fact that this even has to be a law is ridiculous.

Unless the child is actually at risk, the parent's new partner shouldn't be an issue. The law and the father are being an ass.

According to what is described on this thread about these clauses, it's ok to have people spend the night but not cohabit. Thus the law allows for a revolving door of unknown people to be passing through the home but not for a stable relationship to establish. Yet these laws are being passed off in the name of 'child protection'? What a joke.

Divorce brings the worst out of people. I and my parents were lucky enough to avoid it, but I've seen many friends turned into emotional wrecks by it. It's like everyone turns into vindictive children.

Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.

But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?

Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:

According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree.

So the court added the morals clause, not the divorcing couple.

But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?

Well, they could settle. That's what I would do if I was them, if that really is the issue. They could come to an agreement legal or otherwise that she can live there if he doesn't have to pay alimony.

Again, not saying this is the problem here. But it could be. If it was, than yes as the husband I would press my rights.

Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:

Oh absolutely! No argument there. It is amazing though once people start acting like adults how much laws don't really need to be applied. Its not like the cops are going around checking the house unless the husband files a complaint.

Its a stupid rule and a stupid situation, on both sides. But I can also see people using the"not being able to be married law" as excuses too. People get pretty vindictive in divorces and now the husband sees his ex wife happy and knows that he is going to be paying for that happiness for the rest of his life. He shouldn't have to, whether she remarries or not but nobody ever said that law was fair....its just the law. It's not write and wrong.

 Frazzled wrote:
NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?

How exactly is this supposed to be checked upon then ?

Guards -- armed of course -- in the bedroom of single divorced people ?

Or cameras ?

Or a drone for every American bedroom !

One would suggest that if you're determined to shack up with a smack addicted floozy , breaking the law will not really be a concern.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well again, its not a law, its an agreement that she made and many people make the same agreement, or ones like it. There is nothing wrong with it on its face. If the state were not to enforce it, than they are setting precedent.

Yeah, it would be setting a precedent. And a precedent should be set on this, because right now the application of the law is abitrary, and doesn't match the reality of modern life.

I can understand your argument about relationships being different, but that's really a personal matter, much like divorce papers. These are the terms that one or both of them wanted and both of them signed off on. To have a judge change them would be like letting a judge just let the husband not pay alimony because the wife has a gay life partner, see the media storm that would come with that judgement.

It wouldn't. Courts refuse to enforce certain contract terms all the time. Contract law is a lot more than 'what's written on the page is what the parties have to do'.

I agree she can be in a relationship without being married, but when there are children it does get more complicated and something that was meant to be a safeguard can become a punishment, or both depending on your point of view. I'm not really big on courts getting in on family matters, if it gets that far the situation is usually pretty f'ed anyway.

Sure, courts are only getting in there when functioning relations between the parents have broken down.

The big problem in law comes with terms and definitions. So while she can be in a relationship she is not married and only remarrying ends the first husbands obligations to her. Hell if the law allowed husbands to stop paying alimony once their ex wives were in a relationship then we might have an argument. But it would appear that the terms of the agreement require remarriage.

The arbitrary nature of marriage causes all kinds of issues, and not just with family law. Consider a single parent payment, paid to a woman who has moved on to a new guy with whom she is living happily... if she marries him she loses those support payments. When there was a strong social expectation of marriage that legal loophole wouldn't have been that much of an issue, but these days when most people really don't care that much about marriage then a lot of people are going to continue claiming support payments when really their partner should be providing for them.

Oh and yes you should always support your children. The fact that this even has to be a law is ridiculous.

Very true, and very sad.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.

The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.

Agreed on all points.
The judge is applying the law, but the more I think about it, is being a female hygiene product. In my experience with them, thats not unusual.
The judge could have simply found that they aren't cohabitating. Hey if you can't get married, then there's no way you can cohabitate right? Case dismissed!

We need help with the other law though, which is the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valion wrote:
Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?

I've not heard of it before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So she reno's her home and registers the upper floor as a seperate domicile for rent, her partner rents it.

Generally all it needs is a separate entrance and she's cool, and, if I'm thinking this through right, she could just sleep upstairs and have the child sleep downstairs, thus technically in two different homes, not breaking this law. Though I wonder if the lawyer would then press for abandonment as the mother is technically in a separate house and the child is being left alone.

And for the equal right thing towards MGS, it's not unequal as far as I'm aware, as it would apply to the father as well if he wanted a bunch of dudes knocking on his back patio while the children were about. The fact that he isn't gay and the wife is doesn't really play into the exact equality.

And another capital idea is born.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'll say it again. Its quite specific. Its designed so that when daddy runs off and Jr. gets to come over for weekend visitation, the heroin addicted biker chick daddy fiddles with can't be living there.

But as soon as he marries the heoin-additcted biker chick, having her in the house is fine...? How does that protect the kids, exactly?

And, really, is blokes getting divorced and immediately shacking up with heroin-addicted biker chicks a big enough problem in Texas to be worth inconveniencing those people who are dating normal, well-adjusted, non-drug addicts?

Its a stability issue. Again, I've not heard of this being enforced unless the ex spouse has really gone off the deep end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?

Look at it this way. One helicopter mom is a tiger. imagine if a kid had two helicopter moms swooping in. No one would mess with that kid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.

But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?

Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:

According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree.

So the court added the morals clause, not the divorcing couple.

1. There's a money fight or custody fight going on.
2. This other relationship may have started during the marriage.
3. He's a .
These things don't have to be logical. Its divorce court and people go crazy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?

How exactly is this supposed to be checked upon then ?

Guards -- armed of course -- in the bedroom of single divorced people ?

Or cameras ?

Or a drone for every American bedroom !

One would suggest that if you're determined to shack up with a smack addicted floozy , breaking the law will not really be a concern.

Evidently they sue in family court.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one..

Absolutely. Without posting lurid examples, I think it is sufficient to say that there is reason to be concerned about a steady flow of strangers moving through a house in which children live. I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance. With that said:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.

I wonder if he did.

_______

Frazzled, you seem knowledgable on this subject, did the judge have any leeway in his potential rulings?