Can exwife legally prevent new girlfriend from seeing children?

[Proserpina]

Well you know, Pro, that all things in life require balance.

So when you have a whole bunch of reasonable posts by knowledgeable people, you've got to have the requisite irrational troll posting too, or the universe could implode.

I suppose, in a way, we should be thankful.

You make a most excellent and most valid point!

 

[dmcc10880]

And exactly what have YOU contributed to this discussion, LEGALLY speaking?

Not a damn thing.

Hush your muffin.

Wow... that's nice... you'll likely be joining silverplum and stealth2 soon in the thinking zone.

Anyway, there a no "non-paramour" laws in NV. That's my legal contribution. Thank you. What's your?

 

[dmcc10880]

I do believe there are several threads confirming that a judge can, and certainly in some instances absolutely WILL, issue such an order in Nevada.

I know YOU know this. Most others know this. I'm jes' sayin'.

Please show case law. Otherwise, without would place your post in the world of "invalid" and without merit.

 

[CJane]

Wow... that's nice... you'll likely be joining silverplum and stealth2 soon in the thinking zone.

Anyway, there a no "non-paramour" laws in NV. That's my legal contribution. Thank you. What's your?

You do know that there doesn't have to be a LAW in order for something to make it into an ORDER, right?

Do you understand what judicial discretion is? Or what kind of leeway is allowed in determining the best interests of the child?

It is ENTIRELY possible that a judge WOULD and certainly COULD include a clause that OP cannot have visitation with his child if there is an unrelated woman in the household during the visits.

It might offend your delicate sense of morality ( ) to think that, but that doesn't change reality.

 

[Proserpina]

You do know that there doesn't have to be a LAW in order for something to make it into an ORDER, right?

Do you understand what judicial discretion is? Or what kind of leeway is allowed in determining the best interests of the child?

It is ENTIRELY possible that a judge WOULD and certainly COULD include a clause that OP cannot have visitation with his child if there is an unrelated woman in the household during the visits.

It might offend your delicate sense of morality ( ) to think that, but that doesn't change reality.

Once again, if dcm actually bothered to READ old threads and do a bit of research, s/he would know that it CAN happen.

This guy has been trolling Zig all day. I guess it's our turn now?

 

[CJane]

Once again, if dcm actually bothered to READ old threads and do a bit of research, s/he would know that it CAN happen.

This guy has been trolling Zig all day. I guess it's our turn now?

Wasn't it trolling Carl the other day too? Something about DV and federal funding for arrests? Insisting that if someone called the police for a domestic disturbance, SOMEONE was going to jail because the police get magical money for every arrest?

 

[Proserpina]

Wasn't it trolling Carl the other day too? Something about DV and federal funding for arrests? Insisting that if someone called the police for a domestic disturbance, SOMEONE was going to jail because the police get magical money for every arrest?

Yeap, I think so.

Wait.

Doesn't that sound..suspiciously like...Someone Else?!

 

[dmcc10880]

You do know that there doesn't have to be a LAW in order for something to make it into an ORDER, right?

Do you understand what judicial discretion is? Or what kind of leeway is allowed in determining the best interests of the child?

It is ENTIRELY possible that a judge WOULD and certainly COULD include a clause that OP cannot have visitation with his child if there is an unrelated woman in the household during the visits.

It might offend your delicate sense of morality ( ) to think that, but that doesn't change reality.

In Nevada, that would be overstepping judicial grounds. Maybe in Kansas or Missouri that would be a different story. And your friends from Washington state should recognize that too.

 

[Proserpina]

In Nevada, that would be overstepping judicial grounds. Maybe in Kansas or Missouri that would be a different story. And your friends from Washington state should recognize that too.

Tell you what. Why don't you find us some case law that specifically prohibits a judge from exercising his/her discretion when it comes to ordering a "no paramour" clause in Nevada?

I for one would willingly and gladly apologize if you can do that.

Fair deal?

 

[dmcc10880]

Yeap, I think so.

Wait.

Doesn't that sound..suspiciously like...Someone Else?!

Yeah, sounds like facts which were provided.

 

[dmcc10880]

Once again, if dcm actually bothered to READ old threads and do a bit of research, s/he would know that it CAN happen.

This guy has been trolling Zig all day. I guess it's our turn now?

Yeah, until Zig admitted he/she was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmcc10880 View Post
Hello???? Where did I ever in any post here in this entire thread mention the words "small claims" suit???

Ever? Never.
Watch this...

I apologize, you are absolutely correct. It was Free_advice


FYI... you ladies (and I'm being nice) are not worth it. However I refuse to let your mean spirited feminist views impede my ability to give a guy some honest, correct free advice.

Talk about trolling????? Hello mirror?

 

[dmcc10880]

Tell you what. Why don't you find us some case law that specifically prohibits a judge from exercising his/her discretion when it comes to ordering a "no paramour" clause in Nevada?

I for one would willingly and gladly apologize if you can do that.

Fair deal?

Better deal.... show me where they would and I would apologize. Ya really thing Nevada of all places would enforce morality clauses? Let's hit the bunny ranch!

 

[Proserpina]

Better deal.... show me where they would and I would apologize. Ya really thing Nevada of all places would enforce morality clauses? Let's hit the bunny ranch!

As we suspected.

 

[CJane]

Heck, even Tennessee in the bible belt doesn't have non-paramour clauses for lesbians.

Pot, meet non sequitur.

 

[Proserpina]

Pot, meet non sequitur.

No kidding!