Ark. Man Appeals Ruling Barring Partner From Home

Nov 8, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

A judge violated an Arkansas man's constitutional rights by barring his gay partner from staying overnight when his son visits, imposing a blanket restriction on unmarried couples living together, attorneys told the state's highest court Thursday.

Comments
21 - 40 of 65 Comments Last updated Nov 12, 2013

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Nov 9, 2013
 
Now THAT's a law that was, no doubt, created by Republicans who claim to want less government intrusion into people's private lives.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

A child's non-custodial parent is always barred from having a lover spend the night when the child is present if the custodial parent makes the Court aware of it.

It doesn't matter if it's a heterosexual lover or a homosexual lover. They are treated the same. Isn't that what homosexuals are always clamoring for, to be treated the same?

Stop whining and have your lover stay in a hotel every other weekend when the child visits. Problem solved.
Mikey

Chatsworth, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Walter wrote:
Wow, I just read the article, it seems this dude was once married, sired a son, then decided two turn queer then turned into a drug act... No way should the judge let him "visit" with that young boi!!!
But if the 'dude' was a woman with the same circumstances, you wouldn't have a problem, would you bigot boi?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

guest wrote:
This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
A child's non-custodial parent is always barred from having a lover spend the night when the child is present if the custodial parent makes the Court aware of it.
It doesn't matter if it's a heterosexual lover or a homosexual lover. They are treated the same. Isn't that what homosexuals are always clamoring for, to be treated the same?
Stop whining and have your lover stay in a hotel every other weekend when the child visits. Problem solved.
What if they were to marry?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Merle wrote:
<quoted text>Gay sex is perverse sex!!!
Only if straight people are engaging in it. For gay folks, it's quite normal.

But normal folks don't worry about the legal and consensual sex others might be having, do they?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

guest wrote:
This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
A child's non-custodial parent is always barred from having a lover spend the night when the child is present if the custodial parent makes the Court aware of it.
It doesn't matter if it's a heterosexual lover or a homosexual lover. They are treated the same. Isn't that what homosexuals are always clamoring for, to be treated the same?
Stop whining and have your lover stay in a hotel every other weekend when the child visits. Problem solved.
Since marriage isn't a legal requirement for couples to be together, wouldn't such a ruling be unconstitutional?

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
A child's non-custodial parent is always barred from having a lover spend the night when the child is present if the custodial parent makes the Court aware of it.
It doesn't matter if it's a heterosexual lover or a homosexual lover. They are treated the same. Isn't that what homosexuals are always clamoring for, to be treated the same?
Stop whining and have your lover stay in a hotel every other weekend when the child visits. Problem solved.
No actually, they're not banned at all unless there are certain circumstances in which the Non-custodial parent's partner is deemed to be dangerous or detrimental to the child, otherwise such a ruling would violate the Civil Rights of the non-custodial parent. Try making up another lie.
Schultz

Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometime I just want to tackle you and tickle you senseless.
That's sick.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Schultz wrote:
<quoted text>
That's sick.
Nope, trolls with 86 different screen names are sick. You want a barf bag?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Nov 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if straight people are engaging in it. For gay folks, it's quite normal.
But normal folks don't worry about the legal and consensual sex others might be having, do they?
Precisely.

(as usual)
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Nov 10, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
What if they were to marry?
If the parent remarries, that's a different matter.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Nov 10, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
Since marriage isn't a legal requirement for couples to be together, wouldn't such a ruling be unconstitutional?
Absolutely not. The issue here isn't the right of the non-custodial parent to engage in adult activities. The issue is what is in the best interests of the child.

Courts in Arkansas (and probably everywhere else) have consistently held that a non-custodial parent cannot have their unmarried lover spend the night when the child is present for visitation.

The non-custodial parent has a choice - either have their child over for visitation or have their lover spend the night. It really is as simple as that.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:
No actually, they're not banned at all unless there are certain circumstances in which the Non-custodial parent's partner is deemed to be dangerous or detrimental to the child, otherwise such a ruling would violate the Civil Rights of the non-custodial parent. Try making up another lie.
Sorry, you're wrong. Courts in Arkansas believe exposing a child to fornication is not in his best interests.

Like the other poster you fail to realize that the Courts don't make rulings in such matters based on the civil rights of the non-custodial parent. They make rulings based on what the judge believes in in the best interests of the child. Under these circumstances, Courts in Arkansas have consistently held that it is not in the best interests of the child to allow the lover of a non-custodial parent to spend the night while the child is present.

Again, there is such a simple remedy. The lover can spend the night elsewhere when the child is staying over on visitation. Usually that's every other weekend. Not a big deal.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As I said, Courts in Arkansas consistently disallow the lover of a non-custodial parent from staying overnight. Here’s an important Arkansas Supreme Court case on that very point, which involves a divorcee and a live-in homosexual lover, Taylor v Taylor, 345 Ark. 300:

http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/d...

Here’s part of what the high Court said in its ruling:

“Arkansas's appellate courts have steadfastly upheld chancery court orders that prohibit
parents from allowing romantic partners to stay or reside in the home when the children are present.” See Campbell, 336 Ark. at 389 (this court and the court of appeals have never condoned a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle when such conduct has been in the presence of a child); see also Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325, 692 S.W2d 261 (1995).”

“Arkansas case law simply has never condoned a parent's unmarried cohabitation, or a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle, when such conduct is in the presence of a child.”

So, like I said, that’s the law in Arkansas. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Nov 10, 2013
 
guest wrote:
As I said, Courts in Arkansas consistently disallow the lover of a non-custodial parent from staying overnight. Here’s an important Arkansas Supreme Court case on that very point, which involves a divorcee and a live-in homosexual lover, Taylor v Taylor, 345 Ark. 300:
http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/d...
Here’s part of what the high Court said in its ruling:
“Arkansas's appellate courts have steadfastly upheld chancery court orders that prohibit
parents from allowing romantic partners to stay or reside in the home when the children are present.” See Campbell, 336 Ark. at 389 (this court and the court of appeals have never condoned a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle when such conduct has been in the presence of a child); see also Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325, 692 S.W2d 261 (1995).”
“Arkansas case law simply has never condoned a parent's unmarried cohabitation, or a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle, when such conduct is in the presence of a child.”
So, like I said, that’s the law in Arkansas. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.
Sorry the law needs to be changed. We'll handle that. You don't like it, too damned bad.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not. The issue here isn't the right of the non-custodial parent to engage in adult activities. The issue is what is in the best interests of the child.
..........
So, you are suggesting that every unmarried person who has custody of, or visitation of a child much first prove in court that their live-inpartner/boyfriend/girlf riend is not a danger to the child?

That would be utter chaos, not to mention wildly intrusive.

I live in one of the most conservative areas you can imagine, and marital status and sexual orientation are not considered when it comes to custody - only the best interest of the child.

Reading this story, I did not see where the boyfriend had personal issues that would bar him from staying in the home. Perhaps I missed them. Criminal record? Child abuse allegations? Something else?

In those cases, of COURSE there would be a question as to what was in the best interest of the child.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
.....
“Arkansas case law simply has never condoned a parent's unmarried cohabitation, or a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle, when such conduct is in the presence of a child.”
So, like I said, that’s the law in Arkansas. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.
I didn't see in this story where either party were promiscuous. And somehow, I doubt that every unmarried couple in AK is forced to sleep at different addresses if their child is in the house.

Can you show where this is the case?

The hotel/motel business must be BOOMING!
Boris

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are suggesting that every unmarried person who has custody of, or visitation of a child much first prove in court that their live-inpartner/boyfriend/girlf riend is not a danger to the child?
No but if that live-in boyfriend is a homosexual man then nothing has to be proven. Homosexual men should never be allowed around young boys.
Reginald

Paige, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Nov 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Boris wrote:
<quoted text>
No but if that live-in boyfriend is a homosexual man then nothing has to be proven. Homosexual men should never be allowed around young boys.
excellent post, thanks for sharing.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Nov 10, 2013
 
guest wrote:
This really has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
A child's non-custodial parent is always barred from having a lover spend the night when the child is present if the custodial parent makes the Court aware of it.
It doesn't matter if it's a heterosexual lover or a homosexual lover. They are treated the same. Isn't that what homosexuals are always clamoring for, to be treated the same?
Stop whining and have your lover stay in a hotel every other weekend when the child visits. Problem solved.
Bull chit. I've never heard of a hetero partner being banned from being in the house with the his or her partner's children. Never. Where do you GET these whack ideas? I mean, isn't you ass sore from the amount of nonsense you pull out of it?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••