Can exwife legally prevent new girlfriend from seeing children?

[LillianX]

There are no non-paramour clauses in NV. Show me there are and I'll roast some crow. You're just too lazy to look up the law and just rely on your inept opinions. Heck, even Tennessee in the bible belt doesn't have non-paramour clauses for lesbians. You, in vastly liberal Washington should revel in that.

For the record, I did just look up the law, because I have been following this thread and was curious. There is absolutely nothing in any Nevada statute forbidding a morality clause in child custody issues. It's 2am, and I don't feel like digging through case law, and even if I did, I don't know how fruitful it would be, as custody orders are not typically public record, but because there isn't any law forbidding them, they are possible.

Most jurisdictions that allow them require both parties to agree to the clause, and as such, they're not terribly common these days. But the bottom line is that they are not illegal in Nevada.

 

[Proserpina]

For the record, I did just look up the law, because I have been following this thread and was curious. There is absolutely nothing in any Nevada statute forbidding a morality clause in child custody issues. It's 2am, and I don't feel like digging through case law, and even if I did, I don't know how fruitful it would be, as custody orders are not typically public record, but because there isn't any law forbidding them, they are possible.

Most jurisdictions that allow them require both parties to agree to the clause, and as such, they're not terribly common these days. But the bottom line is that they are not illegal in Nevada.

Bless you, Lillian, for trying.

I don't think dcm actually understands the concept that you very kindly spelled out (which I emphasized).

 

[CJane]

I don't think dcm actually understands much of anything, but I emphasized your most excellent point so that hopefully the OP will see it and form an educated opinion on the matter.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Proserpina]

Fixed that for you.

LOL. Thank you, CJane.

(And really I literally just Ell Oh Elled at that - the poor pup didn't know what the heck was going on).

 

[Proserpina]

In Nevada, that would be overstepping judicial grounds.

You still haven't provided anything to back this up.

Why is that?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is it your business in the first place?

If we're talking about a legal forum here, and I assume we are, no judge is going to dictate (especially in Nevada) that a man not have a girlfriend and not allow his daughter to associate with her.

The OP's concern was about his wife making this an issue in court and the bottom line is no judge will chastise him in NV for what he's doing. It's just posturing and manipulation by a crazy ex-wife.

Yes a judge would state that. Hence, NO PARAMOUR orders for the duration of the divorce.

 

[stealth2]

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?

He was hassling CDW the other day. Seems that all he really does is pick someone (or a group of someones) to argue with. <shrug>

 

[CSO286]

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!

The phrase "judicial discretion" comes to mind.

 

[dmcc10880]

Ok... let's get back to the facts:

The OP stated "My ex keeps threatening me that she is going to put it in the custody agreement that my new girlfriend will not be allowed around our child."

I find it interesting that "she" is going to put a morality clause in the custody agreement. Unless he agrees, there's no agreement.

In Nevada it is highly unlikely that a judge would include that clause in any order. Even is the bible belt where non-paramour clauses are included in the judgment/order, they are seldom, if ever enforced.

To enforce such a clause would cost the ex-wife inordinate amounts of money of private investigators to prove any claim.

Further to demand that one person can not have contact with one's child is absurd. It's the actions of a woman scorned.

Cyjeff? Let's do this... you bring your '000's to Vegas and we'll roll the dice on a game of blackjack. Winner take all. Second thought, let's add 4 or 5 zeros to it.

Very "shrewd". el oh el.

 

[gam]

Ok... let's get back to the facts:

The OP stated "My ex keeps threatening me that she is going to put it in the custody agreement that my new girlfriend will not be allowed around our child."

I find it interesting that "she" is going to put a morality clause in the custody agreement. Unless he agrees, there's no agreement.

In Nevada it is highly unlikely that a judge would include that clause in any order. Even is the bible belt where non-paramour clauses are included in the judgment/order, they are seldom, if ever enforced.

To enforce such a clause would cost the ex-wife inordinate amounts of money of private investigators to prove any claim.

Further to demand that one person can not have contact with one's child is absurd. It's the actions of a woman scorned.
Cyjeff? Let's do this... you bring your '000's to Vegas and we'll roll the dice on a game of blackjack. Winner take all. Second thought, let's add 4 or 5 zeros to it.

Very "shrewd". el oh el.

I have read many posts on this board, where it was the male demanding that one person can not have contact with one's child. Would that be absurd to? Would that be the actions of a man scorned?

 

[dmcc10880]

Would that be absurd to?

Umm... "to" what or where? Ahh... I think you must mean "too". My bad.

Whether the person wanting a non-paramour clause in their order is a man or woman, they are typically acting only to control the other party for whatever reason. Divorce, as I've said is a business deal. Treat it as such and leave the sour grapes left to turn to vinegar.