Porn as grounds for denying visitation

[pomona_dweller]

What is the name of your state? CA

My soon to be ex has discovered my postings on internet swing sites and is demanding that I undergo treatment for pornography and sex addiction before our 12 year old son visits me at my home.

Is she likely to be able to make this stick? Or should I be more worried about being blackmailed with the pictures?

shoulda been a monk . . ..

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What you do on your own time is of little consequence to your ability to be a parent. Unless you are forcing your child to view and/or participate then your attorney (that's a hint) will have little trouble in getting this information barred from the visitation issues.

 

[stealth2]

shoulda been a monk . . ..

No, you shoulda been more discreet. Certainly not be posting questionable photos of yourself on the internet. Yeah, she can ask that a judge order that you go to counseling. Whether or not the judge will do so is anyone's guess. I certainly wouldn't expect the judge to be overly impressed with you.

 

[Gracie3787]

What is the name of your state? CA

My soon to be ex has discovered my postings on internet swing sites and is demanding that I undergo treatment for pornography and sex addiction before our 12 year old son visits me at my home.

Is she likely to be able to make this stick? Or should I be more worried about being blackmailed with the pictures?

shoulda been a monk . . ..

If she, or her attorney goes into court with the the proof of your "internet activities" a Judge would probably order supervised visits, and counseling for you.

Let me put it this way to you- Your ex found the site, so what is to prevent your son from running across it also? If your ex has parental control on her home computer, don't let that make you think that your son can't find it. remember, he can use other computers at friend's etc.

Your son is 12 years old, and believe me, kids around that age are more aware of their parents' activities than their parents' would ever guess, no matter how private or discreet the parent tries to be.

 

[CJane]

'Immoral behavior' is often enough grounds to force supervised or otherwise limited visitation. It's up to the judge/state to determine what constitutes immorality, but I'm betting, if you agree to not access the internet while the child is in your home, and you make some other concessions as well, it won't be an issue.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

'Immoral behavior' is often enough grounds to force supervised or otherwise limited visitation. It's up to the judge/state to determine what constitutes immorality, but I'm betting, if you agree to not access the internet while the child is in your home, and you make some other concessions as well, it won't be an issue.

My response:

I have to chuckle with this, and the other, responses. If the "activity" does not involve the child, there is no court in California that will limit this father's visitation. There is NOTHING immoral about sexual activity, except that it may be unlawful where children and animals are involved. With those two exceptions, there is nothing Momma Bear can do, and nothing the court "can" do about it.

Do you think women and men in nudie magazines don't have children, and are kept away from their children all because of their pictures appearing in magazines?

How stupid of all of you that would believe it is so.

IAAL

 

[CJane]

My response:

I have to chuckle with this, and the other, responses. If the "activity" does not involve the child, there is no court in California that will limit this father's visitation. There is NOTHING immoral about sexual activity, except that it may be unlawful where children and animals are involved. With those two exceptions, there is nothing Momma Bear can do, and nothing the court "can" do about it.

Do you think women and men in nudie magazines don't have children, and are kept away from their children all because of their pictures appearing in magazines?

How stupid of all of you that would believe it is so.

IAAL

I wasn't saying there there WAS anything immoral about sexual behavior. And, I was responding in a general sense, not specifically to CA statutes.

I know that in my state, if an activity is taking place while the children are in the home (ie, posting pictures online, visiting porn sites while the children are in the house, etc) then the courts can remove the children from the situation.

Granted, I'm in a much more conservative area of the country, but in this county, ANY mention of pornography in a custody hearing almost always guarantees that the parent not 'involved' in the activity receives full custody.

Yeah, it varies by county, state, and even individual judge. I was simply suggesting that this guy attempt to reach a compromise - and not accessing porn or 'adult sites' while the kids are home/awake seems like a small concession to make.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, IAAL, I was thinking about in in other terms. Mom can make it an issue if she likes. By doing so, she could drag the custody hearings out by a significant amount of time - costing OP a fair chunk of change. And his indiscretion by posting photos of himself isn't likely to gain him a huge "atta boy" from the judge. Unless, of course, the judge indulges as well.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Actually, IAAL, I was thinking about in in other terms. Mom can make it an issue if she likes. By doing so, she could drag the custody hearings out by a significant amount of time - costing OP a fair chunk of change. And his indiscretion by posting photos of himself isn't likely to gain him a huge "atta boy" from the judge. Unless, of course, the judge indulges as well.

And her attorney would be an idiot to open the issue. Why? I'll give you a minute to think about that sweetie

 

[stealth2]

Perhaps, Beebs. But "lifestyle" issues do get brought up and they do have a way of snowballing the entire situation. And even if it's not brought up - if MommaBear is pissed off enough, she may become very, very stubborn. Hell, OP can go f*ck a duck if he wants to - but if he had half a brain he'd keep it quiet until things are finalized.

 

[CJane]

Perhaps, Beebs. But "lifestyle" issues do get brought up and they do have a way of snowballing the entire situation. And even if it's not brought up - if MommaBear is pissed off enough, she may become very, very stubborn. Hell, OP can go f*ck a duck if he wants to - but if he had half a brain he'd keep it quiet until things are finalized.

This is a good point.

I know that, in my divorce, a similar issue was brought up. I'm a writer, and several of my stories are more... erotic... in nature than others. While we were married, my ex had no issue with that, or with websites that I visited (some of which he had recommended). However, during the divorce, he decided that he DID have issues with all of it, and it became a major part of our custody hearings.

After 8 months of fighting with him, I agreed not to access 'adult' sites while the kids are here, and agreed that the kids would have no computer access at all while in my home.

Small price to pay to have my kids in my house, yanno?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Perhaps, Beebs. But "lifestyle" issues do get brought up and they do have a way of snowballing the entire situation. And even if it's not brought up - if MommaBear is pissed off enough, she may become very, very stubborn. Hell, OP can go f*ck a duck if he wants to - but if he had half a brain he'd keep it quiet until things are finalized.

QUACK....QUACK!!!

If her attorney is an idiot he will listen to her, bring it up in court and then every minute detail of HER sexual history, whether or not within the marriage, even down to her dreams, fantasies and thoughts, will be open to examination by the court and opposing attorney.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Actually, IAAL, I was thinking about in in other terms. Mom can make it an issue if she likes. By doing so, she could drag the custody hearings out by a significant amount of time - costing OP a fair chunk of change. And his indiscretion by posting photos of himself isn't likely to gain him a huge "atta boy" from the judge. Unless, of course, the judge indulges as well.

My response:

Ladies, ladies, ladies! Please! Your sense and sensibilities are irrelevant in law, and have no place in Calfornia.

This is California we're talking about, remember? This is not some Bible Thumping, corn State!

Also remember, this is my practice area. I represent, and have over the many years, represented strippers, and pornographers, both men and women alike - - all of whom are parents. The issue of their professions, or their extracurricular activities, wouldn't even make it to trial. There would be no "dragging out" of anything - - unless there's proof of something illegitimate.

There is nothing illegal about having your nude photos, or your "activities", posted to the Internet. In California, it's a non-issue. In other words, there is NOTHING in our writer's post that would indicate that doing whatever the hell he's doing would make him less of a parent, or worse, need to be placed on restrictive visitation. It just won't happen in this State. Like I said, such activities would not make it to trial. And, if some pro-se litigant did make an issue of this "issue" at trial, the most you'll get from a judge is a "yawn", and a terse, "Next issue!!"

Thanks for the laugh!

IAAL

 

[LdiJ]

My response:

I have to chuckle with this, and the other, responses. If the "activity" does not involve the child, there is no court in California that will limit this father's visitation. There is NOTHING immoral about sexual activity, except that it may be unlawful where children and animals are involved. With those two exceptions, there is nothing Momma Bear can do, and nothing the court "can" do about it.

Do you think women and men in nudie magazines don't have children, and are kept away from their children all because of their pictures appearing in magazines?

How stupid of all of you that would believe it is so.

IAAL

I will conceed to your expertise on CA...however many judges, in many other states have ordered counseling and supervised visitation when internet porn is involved.

 

[stealth2]

Fair enough, IAAL.