FYI-News Article Re: TN and Overnight Romantic Guests

[neopandora]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TN

TN divorce rulings relax romance prohibitions - WSMV Channel 4What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TN

TN divorce rulings relax romance prohibitions - WSMV Channel 4What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

While I think having new bed-warmers spend the night before the ink is dry is generally craptacular parenting, I can't help but say...

Hey, Tennessee! Welcome to the 21st Century!

 

[neopandora]

While I think having new bed-warmers spend the night before the ink is dry is generally craptacular parenting, I can't help but say...

Hey, Tennessee! Welcome to the 21st Century!

lol Proserpina. I completely agree with you, but we have so many cases where the parents were never married and it has always seemed really silly to tell 2 unmarried people who lived together when a child was conceived and born that they can never have anyone spend the night.

And, in many judicial districts, up until the past 6 months or so, if 1 party wanted a no paramour clause it was almost always unilaterally put in place by the Judge (and these were post divorce and/or non married situations). If both parties agree to a no overnight guests clause, it's one thing, but that wasn't what was happening.

I have a feeling that even though we have now entered the 21st century that the standard of harm to a child of an overnight guest will be very very low to prove for awhile. But it's a step in the right direction.

 

[mistoffolees]

lol Proserpina. I completely agree with you, but we have so many cases where the parents were never married and it has always seemed really silly to tell 2 unmarried people who lived together when a child was conceived and born that they can never have anyone spend the night.

Actually, that's not the standard advice. The standard advice here is that the other parent can not interfere with you having overnight guests unless the court order says otherwise. It is also typically added that most judges will not put that into a court order unless the couple agrees to it.

And, in many judicial districts, up until the past 6 months or so, if 1 party wanted a no paramour clause it was almost always unilaterally put in place by the Judge (and these were post divorce and/or non married situations). If both parties agree to a no overnight guests clause, it's one thing, but that wasn't what was happening.

Maybe in TN and a few parts of the Bible Belt. That hasn't been true in most of the country for years.

I have a feeling that even though we have now entered the 21st century that the standard of harm to a child of an overnight guest will be very very low to prove for awhile. But it's a step in the right direction.

The fact that it has made it through appeals means that it's easier to get those clauses overturned in TN now. And if someone has an even halfway decent attorney, it should be possible to ensure that they never get added.

 

[neopandora]

Actually, that's not the standard advice. The standard advice here is that the other parent can not interfere with you having overnight guests unless the court order says otherwise. It is also typically added that most judges will not put that into a court order unless the couple agrees to it.

Thanks for clarifying for other posters. I shouldn't have used the pronoun "we". I meant it had been standard in TN practice, not this board or any other state.