Infidelity and custody of children

[nofool4u]

I am of the opinion that, as long as a parent is fit to raise children, that in the case of divorce where infidelity is involved, and can be proven, the non-cheating spouse should get first choice at custody. (if both parents cheated, then I guess its up for grabs)

 

My thinking is I would think a court, if they truly care about the well being of the children, would not want kids raised by an unscrupulous parent.

 

Also, aside from infidelity, I think if a custodial parent wants to move thousands of miles and take the children away from the other parent, that the parent that wishes to leave should relinquish custody to the non-custodial parent if the non-custodial parent wishes so. I have seen too many custodial parents, mainly mothers, that will move too many miles away making regular visitation impossible for the non-custodial parent. I just don't see how that can or should be allowed. If the custodial parent wants to move, then move, but leave the kids behind(so long as the kids want that as well). The non-custodial parent should have insult added to injury. Its bad enough they are already every other weekend parents, they now have to see their kids maybe twice a year if they are lucky?

 

Thoughts?

[Silly_Girl]

I absolutely believe a person's fitness to parent must be based on how they treat their children. Too many variables to say that someone who has cheated is not a fit or loving parent.

 

Relationship resentments must not be taken out on the children.

[nofool4u]

I believe if one cheats on their spouse, they cheat on their kids.

 

If they didn't care enough about their kids' well being when they were taking time away from their lives to be with their affair partner, then they shouldn't have a problem with letting their betrayed spouse have custody.

 

And if there are two parents, why shouldn't the fit non-cheating parent get custody?

 

And there is no relationship resentment being taken out on the kids. Its about who is best to raise them. Someone with good values? Or someone that left them at home with daddy/mommy so they could go out and get some side sex?

[Silly_Girl]

If you start deciding who can parent based on moral values you're on very shaky ground. I don't think anyone should smoke in front of/near their kids. And those who abuse alcohol. What about if someone spends their spare money on bingo/the horses instead of their kids' extra-curricular activities...?

 

What if someone has cheated because they felt it their only option after years of abuse?

 

A specific behaviour such as cheating does not, in my view, render a parent unworthy.

 

Kids need both their parents, you don't get elevated to 'super-parent' just because you didn't cheat.

[AnotherRound]

My thoughts would be, once we start deciding what makes someone a "good" or "bad" parent, who gets to make those decisions? I mean, it seems to me that the variations would be so vast that it would be impossible to decide. Not including trying to work in religious beliefs, cultural issues, etc.

 

I have thought that anyone who breaks the vows should lose their rights to all things marital - but not sure we could make laws about that. Imo, there are often MANY vows broken in many relationship LONG before any affairs take place. Maybe the "cheating" partner is cheating second? How would that be figured out?

 

And, since adultery isn't illegal, and only religiously wrong (well, in some religions, not all), I'm not even sure that would be something that could be made to make someone a "bad" parent. I can think of a lot of things that ARE illegal that would make me worry about the children far more than an affair.

 

And, a non-custodial parent can have things worked into the parenting agreement that the other parent cannot move - a friend of mine actually just had this done last Tuesday in court for his year old baby girl. So, she can't be taken away from him by the mother.

 

I think maybe the issue is, what qualifies as unscrupulous? And who gets to decide that? And it seems like it could be VERY subjective, so, I would disagree with saying that it means a parent should lose their rights.

[january2011]

From my experience and observations, I agree with nofool4u. Parents who cheat and neglect their spouse tend to also neglect their children as they get caught up in the heady aroma of the affair. Then as the relationship becomes more established, they may even try to supplant the betrayed spouse with the AP in an attempt to create a new family unit - as though the BS never existed. Going as far as telling the children that the AP is their new daddy or mummy, before any engagement or marriage has occurred.

 

I think it's a very sad state of affairs all round. And it's sad that the children tend to be used as pawns in a game of one-upmanship.

[nofool4u]

If you start deciding who can parent based on moral values you're on very shaky ground.

 

Not saying that. If both parents are fit parents, and both parents want custody, why should the adulterer get custody?

 

If one parent is a drug addict, and one a cheater, well then I'd have to side with the lesser evil here, while by no means being little, and say the cheater should have custody.

 

But if one parent lives a clean life, and the other parent is an adulterer, then the betrayed parent should get custody. If its in the best interest of the child, then one parent in this situation is better suited to raise the children, and it isn't the unscrupulous cheater.

 

 

I don't think anyone should smoke in front of/near their kids. And those who abuse alcohol. What about if someone spends their spare money on bingo/the horses instead of their kids' extra-curricular activities...?

 

You mean like my x-wife? With regards to smoking and spending the money on herself rather than my kids that is.

 

 

What if someone has cheated because they felt it their only option after years of abuse?

 

The only option there is to divorce. And thats the solution to being abused? Cheat and have the possibility of even MORE abuse when they find out?

 

But I'll digress, depends on what form the abuse takes. Physical abuse? Then that person shouldn't have custody. The cheater would be the lesser of the 2 evils, although still no excuse to cheat.

 

Some people will say that abuse can come in the form of "neglect" of their partner. And some people will say "neglect" can be only have sex once every two weeks.

 

But again, I am talking about a FIT parent getting custody. A physical abuser is not fit.

 

 

A specific behaviour such as cheating does not, in my view, render a parent unworthy.

 

In my view it does if the other parent isn't abusive and lives a good life.

 

Kids need both their parents, you don't get elevated to 'super-parent' just because you didn't cheat.

 

You do if you are a fit parent.

 

Again, if you have 2 parents who by all definitions are good parents, but one is an adulterer, why should the adulterer, someone who will set a bad example, be granted custody?

 

In my view, again unless there is a circumstance such as the other parent being, for example, a physical abuser, the cheating parent is showing they aren't stable, and that if they took into consideration their kids' welfare, they wouldn't have been out betraying them and the parent they love.

 

There are other circumstances to take into consideration of course.

 

But if you have a loving parent who isn't an abuser and is just on the ***** end of the stick with regards to infidelity bestowed upon them by their wayward spouse, then the WS in this situation shouldn't just expect to get custody.

 

You said earlier that kids need both parents. I agree.

 

So what do you think of the custodial parent moving them states away from the other parent, mainly the father?

 

How is that fair to the kids or the father? In my view the law should be structured so that if the non-custodial parent wants custody, that the parent that is moving should relinquish custody to the other. That is unless the kids want to move with the custodial parent.

[nofool4u]

And, since adultery isn't illegal, and only religiously wrong (well, in some religions, not all), I'm not even sure that would be something that could be made to make someone a "bad" parent. I can think of a lot of things that ARE illegal that would make me worry about the children far more than an affair.

 

I agree. However, for example, you have a great father who does everything he does with his family in mind. His wife cheats, gets custody. Why should that be? Why should the father be turned into an every other weekend dad when it was his wife that went out and f#cked around?

 

As far as you commenting on what if the cheater is cheating second? I did say in my first post that if they both are cheating, then its up for grabs.

 

 

And, a non-custodial parent can have things worked into the parenting agreement that the other parent cannot move - a friend of mine actually just had this done last Tuesday in court for his year old baby girl. So, she can't be taken away from him by the mother.

 

That won't work if she wants to move. A friend of mine had the same things written into his parenting agreement. She remarried, her husband, a doctor, got a job 3 states away. She took it to court, my friend fought it, and she won the right to move them away. On top of that, she used that very same court date to increase the child support. Insult to injury.

 

So its my experience that you can have that language written in, but it won't hold up. I think the difference is that it wasn't his x-wife that was looking for work in another state that it was an opportunity for her husband, and since they are married, not her fault. I don't know. All I know is his parenting agreement didn't hold up in the end.

 

 

I think maybe the issue is, what qualifies as unscrupulous? And who gets to decide that?

 

Its pretty clear that infidelity is unscrupulous.

 

 

And it seems like it could be VERY subjective, so, I would disagree with saying that it means a parent should lose their rights.

 

Not saying they should lose their rights. They can be the every other weekend parent like so many of the rest of us have to be.

 

I'm saying that the person that caused pain to the family, and didn't care enough about the kids' well being enough to stay home instead of going out and screwing whoever they want, shouldn't expect custody. That should go to the parent that, as long as they are fit in all the other ways, that cared enough about the family to stay their ass at home.

[Silly_Girl]

Nofool... Both parents could be equally good at caring for, and showing love to their children. To select the non-cheater as custodial parent IS to use subjective moral standards to reward the non-cheater. Or 'punish' the cheater.

[AnotherRound]

I agree. However, for example, you have a great father who does everything he does with his family in mind. His wife cheats, gets custody. Why should that be? Why should the father be turned into an every other weekend dad when it was his wife that went out and f#cked around?

 

As far as you commenting on what if the cheater is cheating second? I did say in my first post that if they both are cheating, then its up for grabs.

 

 

 

 

That won't work if she wants to move. A friend of mine had the same things written into his parenting agreement. She remarried, her husband, a doctor, got a job 3 states away. She took it to court, my friend fought it, and she won the right to move them away. On top of that, she used that very same court date to increase the child support. Insult to injury.

 

So its my experience that you can have that language written in, but it won't hold up. I think the difference is that it wasn't his x-wife that was looking for work in another state that it was an opportunity for her husband, and since they are married, not her fault. I don't know. All I know is his parenting agreement didn't hold up in the end.

 

 

 

 

Its pretty clear that infidelity is unscrupulous.

 

 

 

 

Not saying they should lose their rights. They can be the every other weekend parent like so many of the rest of us have to be.

 

I'm saying that the person that caused pain to the family, and didn't care enough about the kids' well being enough to stay home instead of going out and screwing whoever they want, shouldn't expect custody. That should go to the parent that, as long as they are fit in all the other ways, that cared enough about the family to stay their ass at home.

 

Good points, and I agree, it's not fair. But I was talking about "cheating first" as in, broke other vows that were not infidelity before there was infidelity. For instance, what if the BS was not fulfilling their role as a SO to the WS? Wouldn't that be a breaking of the vows they made? And, if they did break vows (not adultery, other vows, to honor and cherish, etc.) first, does that make them an unfit parent?

 

I think that you are talking about a very specific situation, and I'm probably not thinking the same thing. Sure, if the BS was perfect, and never did anything "unscrupulous" in the marriage, and the other parent did - maybe. But I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in any relationship that hasn't done something at some time that someone else, somewhere, could find "unscrupulous".

 

And, no, not everyone agrees that having an affair is "unscrupulous". So, there's the subjectivity I was talking about.

 

I hope that you aren't the father in this scenario that is going to be denied access to his children? But if you are, I'm wondering what your exW's "story" would be? Would she say that you broke the vows first? Or that you did anything unscrupulous (ie verbal abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, etc)???? (If you aren't the father in this scenario, disregard the last).

[nofool4u]

Nofool... Both parents could be equally good at caring for, and showing love to their children. To select the non-cheater as custodial parent IS to use subjective moral standards to reward the non-cheater. Or 'punish' the cheater.

 

I'll ask again, why should the father become an every other weekend dad because his wife chose to leave him at home with the kids so she could to get f****d by another man?

[AnotherRound]

I'll ask again, why should the father become an every other weekend dad because his wife chose to leave him at home with the kids so she could to get f****d by another man?

 

Well, when you put it that way, it does seem unfair. But what's the wife's story? I mean, surely she has a side, a truth, in this too?

 

And simply put - bc it's NOT illegal to have an affair, and it doesn't automatically make her a bad parent. Not fair maybe, but very little in life is.

[nofool4u]

I hope that you aren't the father in this scenario that is going to be denied access to his children?

 

No, I'd fight tooth and nail if my X tried to leave out of state. I don't care how much it would cost me.

 

So no, not the father in this scenario, with the exception of her cheating and getting custody. My attorney told me that as long as I have a penis, I won't get custody.

 

 

But if you are, I'm wondering what your exW's "story" would be? Would she say that you broke the vows first?

 

Oh I'm sure in her mind I did somehow. Basically she was a repeat cheat. I found out she was cheating on me before marriage, during, and up to the end.

 

And gee, she must just be picking neglectful guys, cuz she is now cheating on her new husband too.

 

 

Or that you did anything unscrupulous (ie verbal abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, etc)????

 

Never any neglect, except from her. Sure when we had kids, things calmed down because their needs came first. But there was always time, and I wasn't the one turning her down. Quite the contrary.

 

As far as being turned into an every other weekend dad, I thought even the fact that I cared for my children when she was out sleeping around would make a difference. Nope.

So basically I find out my wife was cheating for years, I stayed home watching my kids thinking I was being a good husband letting her blow off some steam, and in the end I end up not being able to tuck my kids in every night any longer.

Edited October 1, 2012 by nofool4u

[nofool4u]

Well, when you put it that way, it does seem unfair. But what's the wife's story? I mean, surely she has a side, a truth, in this too?

 

Ya ya, I know, in your mind there must have been SOMETHING I did that open her legs up to other men all those years. I'll have to think long and hard for you about how this is my fault.

 

 

And simply put - bc it's NOT illegal to have an affair, and it doesn't automatically make her a bad parent. Not fair maybe, but very little in life is.

 

And people wonder why kids are so F'd up today.

[AnotherRound]

Ya ya, I know, in your mind there must have been SOMETHING I did that open her legs up to other men all those years. I'll have to think long and hard for you about how this is my fault.

 

 

 

 

And people wonder why kids are so F'd up today.

 

 

No, I'm not saying that you did something wrong, I'm saying that she would probably say that you did. And you verified this, that she probably would. So, in that case, how would it be decided who was the "better" parent?

 

If everything you say is true, that you have never done anything unscrupulous while in the marriage, and she she was out cheating every day, then yes, I agree, it's unfair that you only have access to your children every other weekend.

 

I'm sorry you're in this situation... I sincerely hope that it works out for you. As your children get older, if they aren't old enough already, they will have the legal right to express who they want to live with and have that considered by the courts. Maybe look into that if it's possible now, or when they become of age (I think it varies in different states, not sure?).

 

Good luck... and sorry if it sounded like I was blaming you, it wasn't my intent. Just trying to get you to see why it would be difficult to make any hard laws about something like this.

[Silly_Girl]

I think it might have helped, OP, if you'd made it clear the thread was about your RL circumstance rather than you genuinely asking for opinions.

[nofool4u]

No, I'm not saying that you did something wrong, I'm saying that she would probably say that you did. And you verified this, that she probably would. So, in that case, how would it be decided who was the "better" parent?

 

With proof.

 

I'm sorry you're in this situation... I sincerely hope that it works out for you.

 

I've adjusted, working just fine. Its just a bunch of bs.

 

I've had to, however, tell her on several occasions when she'd complain about something, like always being the one to watch them, cook for them, etc, that she got what she wanted, she is getting paid for what she wanted, and if she doesn't like it then she can hand over custody to me and I wouldn't charge her a dime. She said, "that aint gonna happen".

 

So my reply was: "Then shut the hell up"

[nofool4u]

I think it might have helped, OP, if you'd made it clear the thread was about your RL circumstance rather than you genuinely asking for opinions.

 

It isn't really, although I have gone through this. Just like the questions about moving out of state with the kids. That isn't happening, I just know someone who it has happened to and heard stories about other, mainly men, that it has happened to.

 

True, I don't have custody because I'm not the mother, and it sucks. But I've adjusted. Still doesn't mean I can't be a little irked at the idea.

[Silly_Girl]

And custody should never be based on gender either. I've firsthand experience of that nonsense

[TaraMaiden]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thread -

 

The thing to remember is that you are in the USA, and I - for one - am not. Laws vary from State to State there, so it's hardly surprising that the law may view things in a different light over here.

 

AFAIAA, first of all, courts here often ask the children what they would like to do.

Secondly, if the parents cannot agree, courts have the power to make children Wards of Court and assume responsibility for the children's' welfare.

 

Thirdly, simply because a spouse has been unfaithful, it doesn't make them unfit. For example, if it transpires that the other spouse was strict, abusive, liberal with their hands and oppressively dominating, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because they WEREN'T the adulterous spouse, they get first choice.

[nofool4u]

And custody should never be based on gender either. I've firsthand experience of that nonsense

 

I agree, it shouldn't be, but it is. A father already has 3 strikes against him during a divorce when it comes to custody.

 

If the mother wants custody, she'll get it unless you can prove she isn't fit to be a parent. And believe me she could be the worst kind of person and most of it won't matter. Just like my attorney said to me, and he is a bulldog, that as long as I have the penis, I won't get custody unless I can get her on video smoking pot or something. Having sex with questionable and just about countless men won't even get me custody. She could bring another man home every weekend in front of my kids and it doesn't matter. I think it should, but it doesn't.

[nofool4u]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thread -

 

The thing to remember is that you are in the USA, and I - for one - am not. Laws vary from State to State there, so it's hardly surprising that the law may view things in a different light over here.

 

AFAIAA, first of all, courts here often ask the children what they would like to do.

 

Where I'm at, I think they can do that when they are 12. And even then if its a child's wish, the court won't order the mother to hand over custody. If the child simply prefers the father, that probably isn't enough to do it. There has to be a "reason" other than just wanting to be with the father in order to change custody away from the mother.

 

 

Secondly, if the parents cannot agree, courts have the power to make children Wards of Court and assume responsibility for the children's' welfare.

 

Thats not very reassuring if that is true seeing as how I don't believe the courts really give a crap about the best interests of the children.

 

Thirdly, simply because a spouse has been unfaithful, it doesn't make them unfit. For example, if it transpires that the other spouse was strict, abusive, liberal with their hands and oppressively dominating, it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because they WEREN'T the adulterous spouse, they get first choice.

 

I agree. However my premise in this thread is that of one parent doing what he can, and doing everything he does for the family, isn't abusive verbally or otherwise, and a wife can cheat throughout the marriage while the husband is taking care of his family, and she will get custody.

 

In my mind, as long as the father isn't any of what you described, the father is "more" fit than a mother that cheats.

 

Someone who goes out and cheats isn't taking their child's welfare into consideration. Its all about their own gratification. Seems that, like in my situation, the father was fit enough to stay at home with the kids and take care of them while mom was out spreading her legs, but not when it comes to a divorce.

If my wife took her children into consideration, her ass would have been at home with them, and not looking for a new face to have sex with every few months.

 

Who is more fit, a loving father that is always their for his children?

 

Or a mother that leaves them constantly in the care of said father so she can go ride other men?

[TaraMaiden]

This is obviously personal, so I'm going to refrain from commenting.

 

But as to the ward of Court bit? It's emphasised all the way down the line, that insofar as the care of the children is concerned, Courts will always put their welfare and well-being first and there are stringent procedures with child protection services and via consultations with both parents AND the children, to make sure that the outcome is as advantageous to the children, as possible. I know this, because when I lived in Hampshire, my neighbour became embroiled in what might have been a very nasty, messy custodial battle, which the court foresaw and intervened with. It took a lot of meetings, discussions and negotiations, but the children were very happy in the end, and the parents accepted the outcome.

I would add that I'm sure it doesn't work out every time, but the Courts do their best.

[UpwardForward]

(I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread)

 

In our state, the parents cannot move out of state - or thus making it more difficult for parents and children to be together. Although I do know of one mother who moved to the other end of the state - so still difficult.

 

IMO, if both are good parents then everythings's good. But if one parent takes in a SO or Spouse who are resentful/abusive it can be terrible.

 

My grandson's mother married one. The mother then became abusive because of the H.

 

If a child winds up w an abusive parent or partner IMO any time is too long before a legal rescue! (If it even happens).

 

In our situation, we got lucky. After months she found out her Vegas M license was no good, because he was already M. So the 'M' was caput! ReLief!

[Ninja'sHusband]

I think it's unfair to the BS, but the most important thing is what is right for the kids. In most cases that is 50/50 custody. If the WS is being neglectful or abusive...then something else would be in order...but I think kids need equal access to the parents they love.