Okay I have kinda mixed feelings here. It's probably a good deterent from a new alcoholic in training, but at the same time that's just not a place a kid should be!! I personally would have gone bolistic if I found out my kids were there.casa said:I had an issue with my nuttyX taking our child in situations which have 'adult' content...no, not a Bar, AA meetings.Trust me, the things that are said there are waaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than what you'd hear at a bar!
My argument was the adult content she was exposed to. The judge agreed~ he is no longer allowed to take her to his meetings.
If the 'Bar' also serves food, it could be a hard battle to win. If it's just a Bar and does not allow minors at any time, for any reason~ it is clearly inappropriate...the problem is, as other posters mentioned, PROVING the child was there. And when, and why and for how long.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
X took my son to a bar
- Thread starter divorcebound
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
I didn't realize your daughters age when I posted that, I wouldn't have thought honestly of someone taking a child THAT young to AA meetings, I was picturing more like a teenager or so. So from that age I could see AA meetings helping to deter a teenager from becoming a heavy drinker. But a child that young has no business being there for any reason. I am sure if you ex would have said something you would have helped change the schedule to keep her away from there. That's iresponsible on his part.
Apology in advance for 'hijack' of this threadContent said:
LOLnuttyX is a Narcissist~ so likes to show off. Me when we were married, our beautiful daughter once divorced, now it's the vehicles & fiance 1/2 his age.
Narcissists are actually easy to fight in court- their ego triggers so easily 
I have to completely disagree with all of you, although I can see your point based on perception and possibly distinct meetings in your area.
I've brought my children to meetings for years, now they are a bit older I choose not to most of the time because it is an anonymous program. The GAL strongly promoted it as a positive influence for my children. The forensic psychologist noted in her report that both of my children were obviously living a life according to the principles laid out in the program. My children are both predisposed to this disease through heredity (as yours is also). My oldest knows that his mommy lost everything meaningful in her life because she picked up a first drink. They know I will do what ever it takes to stay sober even if that means bringing them to a meeting when they don't really want to go. And most importantly they are learning how to life without alcohol or substances, constantly strive become a better person based on self awareness and learn from and admit mistakes. My five year old would walk out of a meeting with me and says, “Even I feel better!”
In all these years there has only been one occasion I had to remove my child from a meeting because of the state of an attendee, I would do it again in a heartbeat if necessary. But I think it is way out of line of a judge to even consider such a clause that could stand in the way of a willing parent trying to stay sober.
How many meetings have you attended to form this opinion? The main difference....there's NO alcohol at meetings...hence no one stumbling over your children. So, do you think it is better that your ex picks up a drink when caring for your child than getting his ass to a meeting?casa said:
I've brought my children to meetings for years, now they are a bit older I choose not to most of the time because it is an anonymous program. The GAL strongly promoted it as a positive influence for my children. The forensic psychologist noted in her report that both of my children were obviously living a life according to the principles laid out in the program. My children are both predisposed to this disease through heredity (as yours is also). My oldest knows that his mommy lost everything meaningful in her life because she picked up a first drink. They know I will do what ever it takes to stay sober even if that means bringing them to a meeting when they don't really want to go. And most importantly they are learning how to life without alcohol or substances, constantly strive become a better person based on self awareness and learn from and admit mistakes. My five year old would walk out of a meeting with me and says, “Even I feel better!”
In all these years there has only been one occasion I had to remove my child from a meeting because of the state of an attendee, I would do it again in a heartbeat if necessary. But I think it is way out of line of a judge to even consider such a clause that could stand in the way of a willing parent trying to stay sober.
umm actually yeah I do......jslo-pez.......jslopez711 said:You got a problem with the south hai-ku?
Didn't think so!!!!!!!!!
I don't want to cause a riot, but throughout my posting history, I have made it pretty clear that morality clauses are archaic. And I do not agree with courts micromanaging how people choose to parent because people are such control freaks they think its OK to let a court hold that power over THEM in exchange for thinking they still have power over the other parent.
" no overnight visitors of the oposite sex"
"child must be raised a christian"
"child must never be around this or that person"
"child can only wear brown boots on tuesday and striped shirts on friday"
etc etc.....
consistently it is those from the "bible belt" who love those clauses, and go on and on about how wonderful they are.
up here in the 'blue states' the only way you are going to get one of those clauses in, is if both parents demand them, and even then most lawyers are not going to be cheerleading for it.
So there you have it. I know some lovely southern people, and I go there a bit on business and occasional pleasure, but I am really glad I don't have a custody order from there.
just my honest opinion........
Me too! Cheer, cheer!haiku said:up here in the 'blue states' the only way you are going to get one of those clauses in, is if both parents demand them, and even then most lawyers are not going to be cheerleading for it.
So there you have it. I know some lovely southern people, and I go there a bit on business and occasional pleasure, but I am really glad I don't have a custody order from there.
just my honest opinion........
brisgirl825
Senior Member
I agree with you totally. I highly doubt every mom and dad, with those clauses, were pillars of virtue before the marriage. I don't see why they should attempt to make each other be the Virgin Mary and Jesus, after the marriage. Seems like a high standard to hold people to, IMO.haiku said:
I see this getting worse as the country gets closer to no separation between church and state.
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">