My response:
From a legal, and educational, standpoint I could beat the crap out of you with both hands tied behind my back. Do you recall when I said - -
"Better hope you don't have children . . . because that's where this type of information is going to hurt you in court."
Insofar as the marriage is concerned, it was ME who taught you about "No Fault" marital States, and the fact of adultery plays no part in the Dissolution between the parties. So, nothing new there.
However, IF this idiot has children, then her moral character will come into play. Custody or visitation orders intruding on a parent's associational or privacy interests will withstand attack only where there is "compelling evidence" of a "significant bearing" on the children's welfare. [Marriage of Wellman (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 992, 999, 164 Cal.Rptr. 148, 152]
"Significant bearing". What may be "significant" to one judge, may be wholly different to another judge. Most judges don't do this type of balancing test - - they err on the side of the children's welfare. So, when Patti is discovered to be "something less" in the moral character department, the judge is more than likely to rip custody away from her, and to place her on "monitored visitation."
There were probably drugs in Patti's story, too. But, she's not telling. The judge will know, though.
IAAL
