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.

Judges have great leeway, IF they choose to use it.

Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?

In family court? Yes, they have that kind of leeway.

Is it used often? I'm not so sure.

Thanks for that. I don't plan to be before a court anytime soon, but I was curious

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?

B at least in Texas.

Much obliged, thank you

Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.

Unless the husband is not the biological father of the two children who are ages 13 and 10, I think it's a reasonable assumption that they were "married for more than ten years".

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.

Child support and division of property (its a Spanish law community property state) are issues as well.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.

Child support and division of property (its a Spanish law community property state) are issues as well.

Well, there you go, more reasons for this to not just be a knee jerk douche move that people seam to think that it is.

Frazzled wrote:Its a stability issue.

Does this sort of requirement really do anything to encourage stability, though?

Because it seems to me, if we ignore this specific lesbian couple example, that it would be more likely to encourage a couple who has decided that they want to try living together to rush into a marriage that they aren't quite ready for yet due to that being the only way they can co-inhabit.

Requiring them to be married doesn't do anything for stability... we're talking about someone who has already divorced at least once, so clearly marriage isn't being seen as particularly binding.

The idea that there is a morality issue with an adult bringing home another adult for unmarried sexual relationship simply because children are present in the house is ridiculous. The clause is nothing more than another glorification of the institution of marriage and of its magical morality. It requires a disproportionnate restriction on sexual freedoms and on the acceptable forms of relationship.


Yall should take a page out of canadian legislature and agree that the government has no business in your bedrooms.

Government proposes researching gun violence and possible expanded background checks: tyrants wanting to take over our personal liberties and rights that requires violent rhetoric and extreme displays of patriotism/viciousness.

Government controls consenting adults relationships and sexual lives: just sensible legislation.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.

Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.

Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.

I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,

Can't help feeling that her being a lesbian wanting to bring a woman into the home didn't do her any favours in a very conservative state like Texas.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Can't help feeling that her being a lesbian wanting to bring a woman into the home didn't do her any favours in a very conservative state like Texas.

Ya think!

Alos, are the couple formally married, its one thing if Texas doesn't recognize it, but gay couples do get married all the time. I would probably have more sympathy for her if they were married, indtead of it just being theoretical.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.

Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.

Speaking of knee-jerk reactions.

Does this sort of requirement really do anything to encourage stability, though?

Might make it less of a hellish environment for any children.

 Andrew1975 wrote:


I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,

I suspect that would not work very often. Many divorces are very contentious which is why they are in court. You involve the court you accept the gov't telling you how to do it, and the gov't will need some type of guidelines to adjudicate by. Nothing different from any civil law suit really. It would be nice if all folks could come up with mutually acceptable agreements when they have problems instead of suing each other. But it will never happen.,

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.

Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.

Speaking of knee-jerk reactions.

What you expect the other group to not have knee-jerk reaction when you just told them their reasons are based in ignorance and haven't had much though put into them?

Yes, dismissing this type of law with a typical "hurr freedom" rant displays profound ignorance of the subject matter.

I don't think there's a way to sugar-coat that, but you asked.

 CptJake wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,

I suspect that would not work very often. Many divorces are very contentious which is why they are in court. You involve the court you accept the gov't telling you how to do it, and the gov't will need some type of guidelines to adjudicate by. Nothing different from any civil law suit really. It would be nice if all folks could come up with mutually acceptable agreements when they have problems instead of suing each other. But it will never happen.,

What I meant was the law does not need to impose silly rules like this in peoples divorce papers, they should be able to set their own terms and negotiate like adults. That contract then should be binding.

I think that we can all agree from this that you always, ALWAYS, read any legal document twice before signing

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Might make it less of a hellish environment for any children.

What 'hellish environment' are you talking about?

 Monster Rain wrote:
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.

No... sigh. It's based on the basic, this century reality that stable, functioning homes with healthy relationships doesn't actually mean married. That's a line of thinking that's at least two generations dead. Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Might make it less of a hellish environment for any children.

What 'hellish environment' are you talking about?

I think he means Texas in general?

 sebster wrote:
Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.

It fails from both sides, IMO, since it's equally ridiculous to assume that a parent remarrying is automatically better for the kids. I'm living proof that this isn't always the case.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives.

Well sure, until they don't come to an agreement on who gets the house and how custody of the kids might be split, and then its up to the courts to figure it out.

The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,

But, as I pointed out before, the courts don't enforce every single agreement that's ever been signed. Many things are too subjective for courts to rule on, or would require the courts getting involved in ways they just aren't willing to (technically the protection for minor party shareholders are extremely powerful, but given the unwillingness of the courts to step in to the mind of business directors in practice they're rarely effective). And ultimately, the kids never signed anything, and it's their welfare more than anything else that matter - if a parent signed a morality clause and later that clause is used to take a child out of healthy, stable environment, or prevent the parent forming a new relationship that would be a healthy, stable environment for a child, then it's a nonsense to state that court should just enforce whatever was signed, no matter the impact on the children.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The idea that there is a morality issue with an adult bringing home another adult for unmarried sexual relationship simply because children are present in the house is ridiculous. The clause is nothing more than another glorification of the institution of marriage and of its magical morality. It requires a disproportionnate restriction on sexual freedoms and on the acceptable forms of relationship.


Yall should take a page out of canadian legislature and agree that the government has no business in your bedrooms.

Your interests are subservient to the interests of the children (and they remind me of that daily).