• 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.

Gay father in Tennessee-"no overnight visitors"

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

Tennessee Dad

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Tennessee

I am recently divorced in March 2007 from my four sons' mother. We were married 13 years and separated 3 years before the divorce was final. The "Marital Dissolution Agreement" and the "Permanent Parenting Plan Order" were both agreed. There was mediation, but no trial. I, the father, am the "non-primary residential parent". In other words, I have the boys every other weekend and two weeks during the year.

The parenting plan includes the following statement:

"There shall be no overnight adult visitors, unrelated to the parties (as defined by Tennessee law), spending the night when the children are present."

Now, my male partner (lover, boyfriend, etc.) are considering buying a house together. We are considering our options and, among other issues, desire NOT to go against this statement.

The first option is to purchase a house which includes separate living quarters under the same roof. The units are separate with a door between them. If we bought this home, we would place locks on both sides of the door and the two units would remain separate while the children are present. Or, at a minimum, during "bedtime hours".

The second option is to purchase a house with separate living quarters over the detached garage. There is no connection between the two units other than the fact they are on the same property.

In either situation, my partner and I would access any part of the units when the children were not there. And certainly when the children are present, we would sleep in our separate quarters.

For additional information (not necessarily relevant to the legal issue), my partner are not "openly gay" in front of the children, aged 6 - 13. There are NO public displays of affection in front of the children. As far as they know we are just friends. Their mother was obviously upset that I am gay and is not happy that I have a partner and (I believe) she wants them to have no contact with him at all. Currently, my partner and I live together in a home that he owns and I have an apartment across town where I keep the kids when they are with me.

So, my question is:

Would either, both or neither of the two options presented above be considered a violation of the "no overnight visitors" clause in the parenting plan? In either situation, if she contested it, what is the likelihood she would be successful in prohibiting it.
 
Last edited:


casa

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Tennessee

I am recently divorced in March 2007 from my four sons' mother. We were married 13 years and separated 3 years before the divorce was final. The "Marital Dissolution Agreement" and the "Permanent Parenting Plan Order" were both agreed. There was mediation, but no trial. I, the father, am the "non-primary residential parent". In other words, I have the boys every other weekend and two weeks during the year.

The parenting plan includes the following statement:

"There shall be no overnight adult visitors, unrelated to the parties (as defined by Tennessee law), spending the night when the children are present."

Now, my male partner (lover, boyfriend, etc.) are considering buying a house together. We are considering our options and, among other issues, desire NOT to go against this statement.

The first option is to purchase a house which includes separate living quarters under the same roof. The units are separate with a door between them. If we bought this home, we would place locks on both sides of the door and the two units would remain separate while the children are present. Or, at a minimum, during "bedtime hours".

The second option is to purchase a house with separate living quarters over the detached garage. There is no connection between the two units other than the fact they are on the same property.

In either situation, my partner and I would access any part of the units when the children were not there. And certainly when the children are present, we would sleep in our separate quarters.

For additional information (not necessarily relevant to the legal issue), my partner are not "openly gay" in front of the children, aged 6 - 13. There are NO public displays of affection in front of the children. As far as they know we are just friends. Their mother was obviously upset that I am gay and is not happy that I have a partner and (I believe) she wants them to have no contact with him at all. Currently, my partner and I live together in a home that he owns and I have an apartment across town where I keep the kids when they are with me.

So, my question is:

Would either, both or neither of the two options presented above be considered a violation of the "no overnight visitors" clause in the parenting plan? In either situation, if she contested it, what is the likelihood she would be successful in prohibiting it.
I'm sorry I can't speak to TN specifically (my state trashed this archaic statute). I would imagine, however, that different quarters on the same property would NOT alleviate the legal restriction. A more feasible route would be for your partner to stay somewhere else 4 nights a month.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Just curious? Why did you allow this?

My only response is that the 2 of you need to get married in whatever state recognizes same sex marriages. That way you'd be legally related.
 

CJane

Senior Member
While I certainly respect your discretion, if it were me, I would file for a modification to remove this clause.

There are several reasons, but the way it's written, Mom couldn't even have her best friend from college (or whoever) spend the night. YOU couldn't have an old friend from out of town stay over while your kids were there.

Ultimately though, the level that you're willing to go to in order to keep your life a secret from your children will not (IMO) be healthy in the long-term. Find an age-appropriate way to explain to your children what your relationship with this other man is. Trust me that it'll be WAY better than them finding out from little Timmy at school.

But yeah... file for a Mod.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
I agree. If you hide it from there, how do you expect them to respect you when they get older and find out the "lie"?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Tennessee

I am recently divorced in March 2007 from my four sons' mother. We were married 13 years and separated 3 years before the divorce was final. The "Marital Dissolution Agreement" and the "Permanent Parenting Plan Order" were both agreed. There was mediation, but no trial. I, the father, am the "non-primary residential parent". In other words, I have the boys every other weekend and two weeks during the year.

The parenting plan includes the following statement:

"There shall be no overnight adult visitors, unrelated to the parties (as defined by Tennessee law), spending the night when the children are present."

Now, my male partner (lover, boyfriend, etc.) are considering buying a house together. We are considering our options and, among other issues, desire NOT to go against this statement.

The first option is to purchase a house which includes separate living quarters under the same roof. The units are separate with a door between them. If we bought this home, we would place locks on both sides of the door and the two units would remain separate while the children are present. Or, at a minimum, during "bedtime hours".

The second option is to purchase a house with separate living quarters over the detached garage. There is no connection between the two units other than the fact they are on the same property.

In either situation, my partner and I would access any part of the units when the children were not there. And certainly when the children are present, we would sleep in our separate quarters.

For additional information (not necessarily relevant to the legal issue), my partner are not "openly gay" in front of the children, aged 6 - 13. There are NO public displays of affection in front of the children. As far as they know we are just friends. Their mother was obviously upset that I am gay and is not happy that I have a partner and (I believe) she wants them to have no contact with him at all. Currently, my partner and I live together in a home that he owns and I have an apartment across town where I keep the kids when they are with me.

So, my question is:

Would either, both or neither of the two options presented above be considered a violation of the "no overnight visitors" clause in the parenting plan? In either situation, if she contested it, what is the likelihood she would be successful in prohibiting it.
Of course she wants them to have no contact with him at all. I would be utterly surprized if ANY parent (mother or father) would not feel that way under the same circumstances. That is simply the reality of human nature. Parents feel that way about new heterosexual partners too. You also have the added disadvantage of living in the bible belt.

I don't think that you can meet the legal requirements of the agreement unless there are separate legal addresses for the living quarters. Therefore neither of those options might work.

However, if the two of you invested in an apartment "block" or four flat or something similar, and left one apartment empty to be the legal address of one of you, that would probably work. Buying a true duplex might work as well. (no adjoining door)

Personally, I think that your current living arrangement (having an apartment across town for visitation) is probably the wiser one for now. Its all too new and too fresh at this point. Later on down the road when mom has had some more time to "deal" might be a better time to try to be creative.

You also have to consider the risks involved with buying property with a partner to whom you can't be legally wed. Its a risky proposition whether you are lovers, friends or just business partners. As an accountant, forgetting the kids and all else involved, I would not recommend that when it comes to primary residential quarters. Too many partners, both homosexual and heterosexual have ended up with serious financial problems in those kinds of arrangements.
 
While I certainly respect your discretion, if it were me, I would file for a modification to remove this clause.

There are several reasons, but the way it's written, Mom couldn't even have her best friend from college (or whoever) spend the night. YOU couldn't have an old friend from out of town stay over while your kids were there.

Ultimately though, the level that you're willing to go to in order to keep your life a secret from your children will not (IMO) be healthy in the long-term. Find an age-appropriate way to explain to your children what your relationship with this other man is. Trust me that it'll be WAY better than them finding out from little Timmy at school.

But yeah... file for a Mod.
I agree with CJane, file for the modification on this issue. If you and your significant other are considering buying a home together, you need a permanent solution.
 
H

Hannah13

Guest
wish I knew how to do the "quote" thing...like everyone else...

quote: "There shall be no overnight adult VISITORS, unrelated to the parties (as defined by Tennessee law), spending the night when the children are present."

The way I see it...and I am certainly not an atty. but it says: VISITORS right?
However if your friend is not a VISITOR and he ISN'T if he "LIVES THERE" especially if he ALSO owns the house too...then what exactly is the problem?

As for having to get married??? Please. No one HAS to get married. This man is your partner and your friend...take him out of the closet, brush him off and be happy. You are who you are.

While I will TRY not to show my personal feelings on the subject I will say that I respect your wanting to guard the children as well as your respecting your ex wife's views. I like that you do...Personally I like the duplex scenario...:) but who am I.

I just don't get the "visitor" thing. If he owns the home too or is on a lease and LIVES there then he is not a visitor.
Get this modified.
 

jbowman

Senior Member
OhSweetness is on this thread reading so before she can say it... I will say it for her:

Being Gay is Beautiful!!! Its a true miracle.
 
OhSweetness is on this thread reading so before she can say it... I will say it for her:

Being Gay is Beautiful!!! Its a true miracle.
I never said that. It is no more a miracle than being heterosexual -- the real miracle is life itself. But I do feel sorry for him because of the court order. I do agree with Ms. Moburkes -- maybe he should plan a wedding in MA since I do not believe that TN has outlawed gay marriage and therefore he could get married in MA. However when Mr. President Clinton signed DOMA into law, it stated that marriages would not be recognized according to the FUll Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. So TN might not recognize his marriage. Which would be a shame and very frustrating since he cannot be with the one he loves due to mean people.
I hope that maybe his exwife will be understanding and accepting of his relationship and that he does get the order modified to allow for it. That would be so nice if he was able to live with the man he loves in harmony. I wish you well Sir Poster. May you be able to love your love and live peacefully.
 

Bloopy

Senior Member
"There shall be no overnight adult visitors, unrelated to the parties (as defined by Tennessee law), spending the night when the children are present."
Wow. Is this a standard clause in Tennessee? Because, “as defined by Tennessee Law” fell on my eyes as, “And don’t you find a loophole you…” Honestly, I don’t think a MA marriage would cover it. The clause itself seems weighted against you.

I really think you need to discuss these options with your Ex. She is already adjusting.

I think the separate living quarters is definitely in the spirit of the order. While a judge may personally have a bias, I do think every judge has heard of the ACLU. A ruling against you, when you have gone to lengths to respect the order, wouldn’t bode well for any judge.

I think you need to approach this with your Ex to handle this a smoothly as possible. Clearly you are doing all you can to be respectful. Ultimately, The children need to know about your lifestyle and to do anything less would be a disservice to them. Even she must realize that she may one day be considered an ogre to her children if she is unable to treat you with the dignity you deserve.

I think it’s financially a bad idea to buy a “goofy” house to accommodate your particular circumstance. The house with units separated with a door between them? Is that even a cohesive home or a house sliced to rent to college kids? The apartment over the garage will have better long-term value. Work out the finances in detail. Married people find themselves in financial strife too upon separation.
 

Bloopy

Senior Member
The way I see it...and I am certainly not an atty. but it says: VISITORS right?
However if your friend is not a VISITOR and he ISN'T if he "LIVES THERE" especially if he ALSO owns the house too...then what exactly is the problem?

As for having to get married??? Please. No one HAS to get married. This man is your partner and your friend...take him out of the closet, brush him off and be happy. You are who you are.

While I will TRY not to show my personal feelings on the subject I will say that I respect your wanting to guard the children as well as your respecting your ex wife's views. I like that you do...Personally I like the duplex scenario...:) but who am I.

I just don't get the "visitor" thing. If he owns the home too or is on a lease and LIVES there then he is not a visitor.
Get this modified.
Kudos. Despite whatever “feelings” you may have on the matter you are able to be fair.

Not bad for a I-Pod fearin’ Granny.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top