Stay away order

[Toddb]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arkansas
Is there a way to get a restraining order against my adulterous wife's boyfriend that will keep him out of my house and away from my kids until the divorce is final?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arkansas
Is there a way to get a restraining order against my adulterous wife's boyfriend that will keep him out of my house and away from my kids until the divorce is final?

Has he threatened to harm you or your children? Has he harassed you in some way? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no."

Your wife is allowed to have guests in her house. You can try to get a "no paramour" clause put in your orders, but that won't stop him from dropping by for afternoon tea. Talk to your attorney.

 

[mistoffolees]

Has he threatened to harm you or your children? Has he harassed you in some way? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no."

Your wife is allowed to have guests in her house. You can try to get a "no paramour" clause put in your orders, but that won't stop him from dropping by for afternoon tea. Talk to your attorney.

All true.

However, OP can also request exclusive use of the marital home - which would give the same result.

As in most states, adultery does not directly influence custody. However, flagrant behavior including bringing the paramour into the marital home when the kids are there could be one of the factors considered in a 'best interests' determination.

 

[Zigner]

All true.

However, OP can also request exclusive use of the marital home - which would give the same result.

If our OP gets exclusive use of the marital home, than the STBX will have a DIFFERENT home.

 

[mistoffolees]

If our OP gets exclusive use of the marital home, than the STBX will have a DIFFERENT home.

Yes, but OP's goal was, at least in part, to "keep him out of my house".

Plus, if OP gets exclusive use of the marital home, he would have two advantages in terms of primary custody - the kids would be able to stay in the home they're familiar with and ex's flagrant misconduct.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, but OP's goal was, at least in part, to "keep him out of my house".

I understood that to mean out of the place where OP lived, wherever that may be. Your interpretation seems more logical though...

Plus, if OP gets exclusive use of the marital home, he would have two advantages in terms of primary custody - the kids would be able to stay in the home they're familiar with and ex's flagrant misconduct.

Assuming that the OP gets custody of the children.

 

[LdiJ]

All true.

However, OP can also request exclusive use of the marital home - which would give the same result.

As in most states, adultery does not directly influence custody. However, flagrant behavior including bringing the paramour into the marital home when the kids are there could be one of the factors considered in a 'best interests' determination.

We don't know however how long he has been out of the marital home...or whether or not temporary exclusive use has already been given to the wife.

 

[mistoffolees]

We don't know however how long he has been out of the marital home...or whether or not temporary exclusive use has already been given to the wife.

That is true. OP needs to provide more information.

 

[Ohiogal]

Has he threatened to harm you or your children? Has he harassed you in some way? I suspect the answer to both questions is "no."

Your wife is allowed to have guests in her house. You can try to get a "no paramour" clause put in your orders, but that won't stop him from dropping by for afternoon tea. Talk to your attorney.

I have gotten "no paramour" orders that state that the new paramour is NEVER allowed around the children (regardless of time of date) while the divorce is pending. So that may be possible.

 

[Zigner]

I have gotten "no paramour" orders that state that the new paramour is NEVER allowed around the children (regardless of time of date) while the divorce is pending. So that may be possible.

Thanks OG

 

[dmcc10880]

Unless the boyfriend is threatening or harassing you, not too much chance of getting a restraining order.

Further, as stipulated by the AK Supreme Court, in Cole V. Arkansas, little chance of a no paramour clause.

For OP to ask for exclusive right to the home, that would mean his children would have to leave the family home. No so much in the best interests of the children. If he wants her out of the home, get it sold.

 

[Ohiogal]

Unless the boyfriend is threatening or harassing you, not too much chance of getting a restraining order.

Further, as stipulated by the AK Supreme Court, in Cole V. Arkansas, little chance of a no paramour clause.

For OP to ask for exclusive right to the home, that would mean his children would have to leave the family home. No so much in the best interests of the children. If he wants her out of the home, get it sold.

Why would his children HAVE to leave the family home? He could get custody of the children. Also, Cole v. Arkansas was a criminal case. This would be a domestic relations case that would prohibit MOM and DAD from having their paramours in the presence of the children. So what is your argument?

And what is the FULL CITATION of Cole v. Arkansas -- the criminal case you alluded to -- because I do not find an Arkansas Supreme Court decision for a case with that name.

 

[mistoffolees]

Why would his children HAVE to leave the family home? He could get custody of the children.

Funny how people assume that only mothers can have custody.

Heck, I'd be arguing that the very fact that Mom is bringing a new BF into the house while she's still married to someone else is evidence that she doesn't have the kids' interests first in her mind and that Dad should get custody. Obviously, there are lots of other factors involved, but what we know isn't very favorable to Mom.

 

[dmcc10880]

Why would his children HAVE to leave the family home? He could get custody of the children. Also, Cole v. Arkansas was a criminal case. This would be a domestic relations case that would prohibit MOM and DAD from having their paramours in the presence of the children. So what is your argument?

And what is the FULL CITATION of Cole v. Arkansas -- the criminal case you alluded to -- because I do not find an Arkansas Supreme Court decision for a case with that name.

Try Sheila Cole? August, 2011. Shutting down Act 1. Doesn't only apply to fostering or adopting.

Not criminal at all.

 

[Ohiogal]

Try Sheila Cole? August, 2011. Shutting down Act 1. Doesn't only apply to fostering or adopting.

Not criminal at all.

AGAIN, full citation of the case. NOT just a name. Because there is only ONE case at the SUpreme Court called COLE V. ARKANSAS. And it is a criminal matter.