• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Cohabitation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TN

Do my children have any legal protection against their mother allowing a man she's been dating for one month move in with them? The kids just met this man for the first time last WEEK and Mom has announced he will be moving in in February. My ex and my three daughters, ages 10, 13 and 16, live in a three bedroom, one bathroom house. We have 50/50 visitation and joint legal and physical custody.

I am only concerned for the kids. I'm thrilled my ex finally found someone she wants to be serious with. I don't want to hold her back- it's not about that. I'm just worried about my daughters. I have no idea who this man is and he's going to be sleeping a few feet from my girls. All I know about the man is his name.

I suspect there are no legalities about this kind of thing, since adults have the right to do what they want, etc. But I wanted to check anyway.
 


stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Unless your custody order specifies no cohabitation, OR you can prove that he poses a threat to the girls, it's really none of your business. Sorry.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
She also isn't moving him in after just one month of dating...If he is not moving in until February, its at least 2-3 months...just saying.
 
True, true... all of it.

I was actually JUST coming back here to edit my original post to add that there wasn't anything in our decree that addresses cohabitating.

I figured there was nothing that could be done. I am not against her having her move someone move in- I just wish they wouldn't do it so SOON. If she's found someone that she wants to marry, that's great! It's just that she hasn't had a serious relationship last over 3 months since we divorced, so i worry that the kids will be impacted in a negative way if this doesn't work out. Moving in is such a big step- and we have three girls. I worry about them. Who is this man? I just wish she'd take it slower.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
True, true... all of it.

I was actually JUST coming back here to edit my original post to add that there wasn't anything in our decree that addresses cohabitating.

I figured there was nothing that could be done. I am not against her having her move someone move in- I just wish they wouldn't do it so SOON. If she's found someone that she wants to marry, that's great! It's just that she hasn't had a serious relationship last over 3 months since we divorced, so i worry that the kids will be impacted in a negative way if this doesn't work out. Moving in is such a big step- and we have three girls. I worry about them. Who is this man? I just wish she'd take it slower.

Do a background check...
 
Unless your custody order specifies no cohabitation, OR you can prove that he poses a threat to the girls, it's really none of your business. Sorry.


I know. I agree. I just know nothing about this man. neither does my ex- I asked her lots of questions, and she kept saying she would ask him the answers and get back to me. It's scary to think that something bad has to happen to your kids FIRST before you can protect them. I know it's presumptious to think he could be a child molester, but it could happen. If he turned out to be a con man or worse, then (in hindsight) it would look very predictable- lonely single mother of three teenage daughters struggling financially... he chose his target well... I'm just protective of my girls. sigh.
 
Last edited:
Do a background check...

I have thought of that and have spent some time researching this. Can anyone direct me how to do a legitimate one? So many websites to choose from, or is this something that I would do in person at the local courthouse? I want to do it right.

My ex "claims" she did a background check on him, online, for $50, but when I asked her for the info that came back, she said she didn't save it. I doubt she really did one, she was just trying to ease my mind.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I have thought of that and have spent some time researching this. Can anyone direct me how to do a legitimate one? So many websites to choose from, or is this something that I would do in person at the local courthouse? I want to do it right.

My ex "claims" she did a background check on him, online, for $50, but when I asked her for the info that came back, she said she didn't save it. I doubt she really did one, she was just trying to ease my mind.

Most of the on-line sites are crap. Go to a PI and get it done right.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Actually in TN your not supposed to live with your bf/gf when you have children if your not married (and they are not the parent of the child/ren) Judges look down on this and have even removed children because of it. They usually get several warnings though and if they marry its no longer held against them. I have even seen a couple go get married after court one day because of it.

Would you care to provide the statute that indicates this? TIA.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Actually in TN your not supposed to live with your bf/gf when you have children if your not married (and they are not the parent of the child/ren) Judges look down on this and have even removed children because of it. They usually get several warnings though and if they marry its no longer held against them. I have even seen a couple go get married after court one day because of it.

Actually YOU are wrong. Surprise, surprise. Back up what you say.

2008-TN-0825.273; COSNER v. COSNER;
In this post-divorce case, the primary issue presented is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that custody of the parties' two children should be changed from the mother to the father. After a brief hearing at which neither the mother nor her counsel was present, the trial court applied a comparative fitness analysis without discussing or ruling upon whether a material change of circumstances had occurred. The trial court held it to be in the children's best interest to transfer custody from the mother to the father because the mother had allegedly been living with a man to whom she was not married and who was separated from, but still married to, someone else. We hold that the evidence does not establish a material change of circumstances justifying a change in custody in the absence of proof that the mother's alleged conduct has affected the children in an adverse way.

Also:
2007-TN 1222.008 -- Birdwell vs. Harris -- Dad alleged cohabitation made mom immoral parenting and that there were issues with her not following the parenting plan. Dad's complaint was dismissed. Cohabitation did not matter.
AND:

215 S.W.3d 836; CURTIS v. HILL; (2006)
Mr. Curtis filed a petition on June 27, 2005, alleging that a material change of circumstances had occurred and seeking custody of the children. Specifically, Mr. Curtis alleged that Ms. Curtis was living out of wedlock with her paramour, Jeff Kersteins; that prior to her cohabitation with Mr. Kersteins, she had "cohabitated with two other paramours without the benefit of wedlock"; that Mr. Kersteins "verbally berates" the minor children; that Ms. Curtis had not fostered a positive father-daughter relationship between him and the children, and that she "does not attend church regularly and does not encourage the children spiritually." Ms. Curtis answered, denying a material change of circumstances had occurred, and filed a counter-petition asserting that Mr. Curtis's income had increased substantially and that she was entitled to an increase in child support.
And in this case the court stated SPECIFICALLY:
A custodial parent's non-marital sexual activities may be appropriately considered in the context of a custody decision. Earls, 42 S.W.3d at 890. However, "we have repeatedly pointed out that cohabitation alone does not necessarily provide grounds for changing custody when there is no proof that it has or will adversely affect the children." Id.; see Varley v. Varley, 934 S.W.2d 659, 666-67 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Sutherland v. Sutherland, 831 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991); Nelson v. Nelson, 66 S.W.3d 896, 902 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001); Fain v. Fain, No. M1999-02261-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1879548 at *5 (Tenn.Ct.App.E.S., Dec. 29, 2000).


So please back up what you are illegitimately alleging regarding cohabitation. I am waiting. You have given completely incorrect advice. Keep it up and you will be dealt with by the moderators.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I dont know the specific "statue" I will try to find it (if I have time today )but I know this is an does exist. Here is an excert from a TN divorce attorney's site , that's what I've found so far.




If you are still married, i.e., the Court has not entered a Divorce decree, you may not have your children in the presence of your "significant other," mainly because you are still married and in Tennessee, at least, that is considered in poor taste and just plain tacky at best and immoral at worst. After all, you are committing adultery. Importantly all this applies if you are separated, even under a Court Ordered Separation, but still married.

After the Divorce you may have the children around your "significant other" all you want except under "inappropriate circumstances." That means different things in different places, but generally anything of a sexual nature or sleeping in the same bed while the children are in the house is not permitted. You will need to have separate sleeping arrangements when you have the children. If you don't follow this voluntarily, the Judge will issue a Restraining Order and make you pay the costs for having had to do it.

Children will be removed from a custodial parent for violating the above and will suspend visitation if you continue after a Restraining Order has been issued. Strangely enough they don't hold it against the Custodial Parent if she stops living with her lover or marries the idiot.


That is COMPLETELY different than cohabitation. As a matter of fact CASELAW specifically states that you are incorrect. What you have posted is not statute nor caselaw nor offical guiding law. It is nothing more than what courts USUALLY do in divorce cases. No paramour orders are common in divorces until the divorce is final.

THIS is NOT a divorce. This is a couple who is no longer together who are coparenting. Mom has moved on as has dad. So get your facts straight and don't post irrelevant stupidity that you wish would apply.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Thanks, OG, for taking the time. But, it would appear we're both tilting at windmills, eerr.... statues....

I dont know the specific "statue" I will try to find it (if I have time today )but I know this is an does exist. Here is an excert from a TN divorce attorney's site , that's what I've found so far.

I even had to double check if I typed it wrong!
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Good lord, you people.


I have dealt with this exact thing in the court system in TN . Judges do weigh in on the even IF its not a divorce proceeding. Just in general child custody.

Yet you're unable to present your "statue" for viewing. As opposed to OG, who was able to provide a ton of case law disputing your contention.

What now, warren, what now?
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Im not going to concern myself with you, my post is directed towards the original poster



I would not go to court just for this however I would bring this up in court if you were in court for something else. Unless you can prove it is negatively affecting the children.

OP - please be aware that you have received conflicting advice. An attorney (albeit not from your state) has presented you with excerpts from case law (from your state) that indicate you will not prevail should you decide to pursue Mom's proposed cohabitation.

A non-attorney (warren) has spouted off about what s/he "knows", yet is unable to provide any citation to indicate the validity of that knowledge. In fact, warren cannot even grasp the difference between a "statute" and a "statue". (One is law, the other is a piece of art.)

Your choice which is a more credible source of information. (Want a hint?)
 

mommyof4

Senior Member
Originally Posted by mwarren1980
Actually in TN your not supposed to live with your bf/gf when you have children if your not married (and they are not the parent of the child/ren) Judges look down on this and have even removed children because of it. They usually get several warnings though and if they marry its no longer held against them. I have even seen a couple go get married after court one day because of it.

Really? Then why do the TN statutets take into consideration the character and behavior of any person, who is NOT the parent, who resides with or has frequent interaction with the child when making a custody determination? See? The point is that if it was illegal (or not allowed) then there would be no need to inculde that clause for a determination for custody. It would just say that custody would be awarded to the parent who does not reside with anyone else.

Legal Resources


36-6-106. Child custody. —
(a) In a suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, the determination shall be made on the basis of the best interest of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following, where applicable:

(1) The love, affection and emotional ties existing between the parents or caregivers and the child;

(2) The disposition of the parents or caregivers to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education and other necessary care and the degree to which a parent or caregiver has been the primary caregiver;

(3) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment; provided, that, where there is a finding, under subdivision (a)(8), of child abuse, as defined in § 39-15-401 or § 39-15-402, or child sexual abuse, as defined in § 37-1-602, by one (1) parent, and that a nonperpetrating parent or caregiver has relocated in order to flee the perpetrating parent, that the relocation shall not weigh against an award of custody;

(4) The stability of the family unit of the parents or caregivers;

(5) The mental and physical health of the parents or caregivers;

(6) The home, school and community record of the child;

(7) (A) The reasonable preference of the child, if twelve (12) years of age or older;

(B) The court may hear the preference of a younger child on request. The preferences of older children should normally be given greater weight than those of younger children;

(8) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent or to any other person; provided, that, where there are allegations that one (1) parent has committed child abuse, as defined in § 39-15-401 or § 39-15-402, or child sexual abuse, as defined in § 37-1-602, against a family member, the court shall consider all evidence relevant to the physical and emotional safety of the child, and determine, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, whether such abuse has occurred. The court shall include in its decision a written finding of all evidence, and all findings of facts connected to the evidence. In addition, the court shall, where appropriate, refer any issues of abuse to the juvenile court for further proceedings;

(9) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent or caregiver and the person's interactions with the child; and

(10) Each parent or caregiver's past and potential for future performance of parenting responsibilities, including the willingness and ability of each of the parents and caregivers to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and both of the child's parents, consistent with the best interest of the child.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, the court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination regarding a minor child or may modify a prior order of child custody upon finding that the custodial parent has been convicted of or found civilly liable for the intentional and wrongful death of the child's other parent or legal guardian.

(c) As used in this section, “caregiver” has the meaning ascribed to that term in § 37-5-501.

(d) Nothing in subsections (a) and (c) shall be construed to affect or diminish the constitutional rights of parents that may arise during and are inherent in custody proceedings.





[Acts 1995, ch. 428, § 2; 1998, ch. 1003, § 1; 1998, ch. 1095, §§ 2, 3; 2000, ch. 683, § 2; 2007, ch. 245, §§ 1-3.]

Oh, did I mention that I found this by following YOUR link, mwarren? It wasn't hard at all to find and post. It took me a few seconds. Amazing.....
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top