Texas Judge Forbids Lesbian Woman From Living With Her Partner
Source: ThinkProgress
Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Comptons partner Page Price, Comptons ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.
And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.
According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called morality clause in Comptons divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to by blood or marriage at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the morality clause, Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Comptons home
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner/
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)This judge inserted, inserted (????) a "morality clause"?
WTF?
Like, he just stuck it in there for the heck of it? And he can do that??
Uh, uh, uh....WFT?!?!
randome
(34,845 posts)But is this a final divorce settlement or an ongoing divorce?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)curlyred
(1,879 posts)I always thought AZ was the nuthouse of the nation , but I see TX has us beat by a mile !
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)authority with lots of power. I'm getting the hell out, there are too many better places to live.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)I think Texas has some recent laws on this regarding custody because the state is so big, leaving it to go even to an adjoining state is a big trip. I don't think you can move your kids out of state without some sort of relief from a judge if the noncustodial parent objects.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #39)
Ilsa This message was self-deleted by its author.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But this case stinks. With the former spouse having stalked the woman, the judge should not be using this clause as if the mother's association with the other woman is a danger to the children. That is what the clause is about, and it's generally applied to 'boyfriends.'
The mother and even her children may need protection from her ex and a witness to what that man will do. Without a person in the home to witness, it's his word against hers. That's what is so bad for all in this case, the lack of protection that another adult can provide the household.
The real issue is marriage. If she was involved with a man and was married, there would be no case here, although she might lose out on child support and the new man would have to try to adopt the children. The former spouse could lose his parental rights over his stalking, but maybe not.
I have an transgendered family member who had to fight off a court appointed attorney who did not believe he should maintain custody because the attorney and former wife playing a convoluted game against him. She eventually lost in the courts as she was fully proven to be an unfit parent, yet her rights to supervised visitation were not taken away. It cost him tens of thousands of dollars to defend himself in court and get the goods on what the mother had been doing to the child in question.
This may end up the same way, since the danger is the stalking by the ex. He might decide to kill his former wife, or anything else. They need to bring him to court and get him prosecuted, and reset the terms of the divorce and custody, IMHO.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)and then transfer her custody to the new county. Travis County isn't that far...
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The Uniform Child Custody and Enforcement Act set a national standard for this sort of thing. Once jurisdiction is established in one court, it cannot be moved to another court unless both parents agree. The law was created as a way to end situations where one parent would skip a state with the kids and request custody in another state, leaving the kids under two competing custody orders. As the law exists now, the first one takes precedence.
FWIW, I have a good friend who has been dealing with a complication of this law for years. He and his ex wife lived in Reno when they divorced and were granted custody arrangements. Since then, he's moved back to California, and she has moved to Arizona. Because neither of them can agree on where the jurisdiction should be moved to (she obviously wants Arizona, and he wants California), they both end up having to go all the way back to Reno whenever they need to deal with a dispute. It's dumb, but it's better than having courts in Arizona and California issuing competing orders (which is how things worked until fairly recently).
At this point, the only state she can move to is Mass. The other 49 states have adopted the federal standard. If she moved to California, or New York, or Iowa, or any other state where her relationship wouldn't be discriminated against, she'd still have to deal with that original court and judge unless the other party signed off on changing the jurisdiction. Any attempt to file for a competing custody agreement in those states would be slapped down.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Scairp
(2,749 posts)Virtually every state prohibits one divorced parent from moving out of state with the kids without the permission of the other. She can't leave without dumping her kids and she may not be able to live with the person she loves in Texas. This a very fucked up situation and I do hope she prevails on appeal.
LeftInTX
(25,315 posts)Or what if her husband moved in with another woman?
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)That's one more reason marriage equality is so important. An opposite sex couple might have to marry in order to live together and share custody, but they would have that option. Most likely, the custody agreement prohibits moving out of state, too.
Fingers crossed, the wife can move back in this summer after SCOTUS rules.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)something similar happened some years back in a North Eastern state where in the women (custodial parent) was barred from having men or a man in home over night, this was initiated by the ex-husband even though he was living with a woman at the time- the ex-wife had asked for more in child support which is what kicked off the case-I believe
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Go to a civilized state, get married there, and present the Judge with a certificate of marriage--make this judge be forced to say that Texas be a state that doesn't recognize another state's valid documents--which means that the state whose document they are rejecting can refuse to recognize TX marriages in return.
Next, hire a good private investigator (perhaps one that is as outraged as I am about this kind of thing who would give the woman a good price) and hopefully find instances of Daddy neglecting or mistreating his kids during visitation--because these nasty divorce/custody cases are all about the leverage.
I wonder if dear old Dad has someone living in HIS house....? Good for the goose, and all that...
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Remember this guy, from the next state over?
BRISTOW, Okla. (AP) A former judge convicted of exposing himself while presiding over jury trials by using a sexual device under his robe was sentenced Friday to four years in prison.
Donald Thompson had spent almost 23 years on the bench and had served as a state legislator before retiring from the court in 2004. He showed no reaction when he was sentenced.
At his trial this summer, his former court reporter, Lisa Foster, testified that she saw Thompson expose himself at least 15 times during trial between 2001 and 2003. Prosecutors said he also used a device known as a penis pump during at least four trials in the same period.
Thompson, 59, was convicted last month of four felony courts of indecent exposure for incidents that took place in his Creek County courtroom.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hat tip to Geraldine.
(Someone had to do it.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't think Flip Wilson meant it quite that way!!
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)It was Sammy Davis Jr.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Rather than sue, he asked to play "Da Judge" on the show.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)a Judge in Texas? Why is anyone surprised? What would Mexico be willing to pay for Texas?
a la izquierda
(11,794 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The epitome of conservative White flight suburbia.
dem in texas
(2,674 posts)McKinney is Grand Central Station for the Texas (and beyond) Tea Party movement.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)But guess the moneyed shot-callers of the movement need an acceptable living place to base from.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)You said moneyed shot. hehheh.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Wants to repeal the 14th with it's birthright citizenship, due process and equal protection clause. Yup, they aren't giving up. If we give in and let them be the majority, they won't stop at this. See the future.
MichelleB
(80 posts)I don't even know how to reply other then wow. That poor woman. I do think that they should maybe take a trip out of state where they can marry. Then come back with all the legal paper work. They can't fight that. At least I don't THINK. I don't really know much about those issues. Just that I live in Vermont, and it's totally legal for gays to marry. As it should be IMO. But if that clause was placed there, it makes me wonder if there's something else in there that says the ex husband needs to okay the new partner. I wouldn't be surprised!! Ugh. Any way, best of luck!!
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Yes, that violates the Constitution. It is law nonetheless.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Wow. Texas is even more effed up than I thought.
Aristus
(66,341 posts)Every once in a while, I like a reminder of why I'm so fucking glad I live in the Evergreen State!...
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Tainting TX law - or what passes for law there - for years apparently ... http://www.smu.edu/Simmons/AboutUs/Directory/DisputeResolutionCounseling/Roach
R. Of Course.
area51
(11,908 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)"past 9pm when her children are present"
What is that? Some kind of curfew? Big daddy judge has to chastise the children of Satan. What a jackass. No, a roach.. good name for him. It makes me hate fundamentalist religion because that's where all this ridiculous judicial behavior comes from.
sigmasix
(794 posts)Many states have variations on these sort of morality laws (read homophobic) on the books about children and adoption. This woman could have her partner live with her, but they have to NOT be in a homosexual relationship with each other. Michigan has the same sort of child-harming homophobic adoption and foster family laws. More than 30 states allow the firing of an individual for sexual orientation- if the homophobes in control dont have a problem with violating the civil rights of law abiding LGBT individuals, what would make anyone think that these same evil homophobes would have a problem harming children over thier homophobia?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Guess I'm confused. Is this a final divorce settlement or an ongoing divorce?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MADem
(135,425 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)...want Texas to secede from the U.S.? This seems to be an excellent argument for letting them.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)He will watch like a hawk for anyone, even a baby sitter, a neighbor over past 9pm and sue her for the kids.
She needs to get a good lawyer and appeal/change the divorce papers asap. Should also hire a good private agent and catch the ex-husband stalking her.
Sure that Judge is a bigot, but he also seems to hate ex-wives. Wonder how old the children are and if she has the means to move away, out of state.
mpcamb
(2,870 posts)A review of his other divorce settlements might be in order.
If that judge hasn't previously put similar restrictions in place, isn't this being specific and onerous to this woman?
cynzke
(1,254 posts)It may be a law but it is not legal and should be struck down.
Guess that means you can't live with your boyfriend either OR a ROOMMATE or TENNANT?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Stupid judge.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Plenty of people with children live with a boyfriend/girlfriend. The morality clause is ridiculous.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)like this asshole judge are psychopaths using religion like a tool to excuse their own bigotries/pathologies. Kick him off the bench.Take away his pension and lock his criminal ass away.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Hell, move to California. We are not that far away.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The non custodial parent can try to bar it.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)other adults in my house not only after 9pm, but around the clock, as I rented out a bedroom
quite often so that we could afford to eat.
And yep the person who mentioned the control thing is spot on.
Never fails to amaze me the number of people I hear about who are divorced
and supposedly fully re-engaged with a new partner, who spend enormous
amounts of energy aimed at controlling the old partner...even if they were
the ones that didn't WANT that partner anymore..........sickos.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Cheviteau
(383 posts)I'll bet if this were a lesbian man the ruling would have been different.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)This case outlined in this link, see below outcome.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/collin-county/headlines/20100630-Collin-County-DA-John-Roach-accused-5537.ece
The worm has turned a little with the FBI now involved.
http://www.dallasjustice.com/dallascriminallawyerblog/texas-judge-suzanne-wooten-still-facing-felony-bribery-charges-but-the-fbi-investigation-may-point-fingers-at-her-prosecutors-stay-tuned/
Judge Suzanne Wooten was found guilty of bribery charges and I ran into a dead end on FBI involvement with John Roach other than the following post (author did not use a real name) so I can't vouch but more abuse of power is charged -- not sure how an FBI investigation gets stopped but it dropped off the radar.
It looks like Greg Abbott et. al.. Roach, Sandavol, and a few others "have engaged in conspiracy"
It looks like White illegally stopped an FBI investigation into Roach's conduct because it would lead to White. He then has the gall to charge Judge Wooten with this.
They should not let this go. This is very serious. The FBI should investigate this all the way to Abbott's office.
BadGimp
(4,015 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Hard.
Nika
(546 posts)I hope they find a way around this foolishness done by this woman hater.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)First, while I do NOT practice law in Texas, when I do family law, Divorce Agreements are something worked out by BOTH SIDES. The Judge does NOT add things UNLESS one side ASKS for it, and either the other sides AGREE, or after a hearing the Judge agrees that the term should be added.
Thus WHY was the morality clause in the Divorce papers? The Judge did NOT put it in there on his own, someone asked for it (or it was mandated by State Law, which is something the Judge has no control over, but if that was the case I suspect it would have been mentioned in the Article).
A further complication is that it appears this clause was agreed to (or NOT appealed from) when the divorce was final and thus any time for an appeal on the article is long past. I suspect the Father filed papers to enforce the Divorce agreement and the Judge was thus restricted by the terms of that agreement, which included the morality clause. It does NOT appear that the Mother filed anything to modify the Divorce Agreement and thus the only thing in front of the Judge was enforcement of the Divorce Agreement. I do NOT see any court on appeal reversing a Judge's order to enforce such an Agreement/Order.
On the other hand, the Mother could file a motion to open the Divorce Settlement and ask for the clause to be removed OR that it does NOT cover her present lesbian relationship. If the Judge rejects that motion, then she has a new grounds to file an appeal on the grounds the clause was NOT agreed to and it was unreasonable for the Judge NOT to permit such a modification ( I wrote this before I found out Custody may be a JURY issue in Texas, see below for more details).
Now, the Judge MAY have ruled on both motions at the same time, rejecting the request for a modification (and thus giving Mother the option of filing an appeal) while enforcing the existing order by giving Mother 30 days to comply with the terms of the Divorce Agreement. That the Judge gave her 30 days to comply, implies to me, he is giving her time to file an appeal, In cases where the law is clear, most orders tend to be "do it today".
Now, I read the report from The Dallas Voice, it gives more information, including that the Judge did NOT find the Mother in Contempt, but will issue an order, ordering the mother move out her lover. When someone violates a Court Order, they are generally held in Contempt, Contempts are almost always upheld on appeal. By issuing a new order, the Judge is giving Mother the option of filing an appeal, for the new order is new and thus the time for appeal has not yet run.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-lesbian-moms-partner-10147997.html
While the Dallas Voice says such morality clause are common in the rural counties of Texas, that sounds more like someone's opinion then actual fact (and may reflect that one side demands such a clause and the other side does not object).
My point is this appears to be a judge who has decided to kick this case upstairs rather then handle the issue at law himself. Are such clauses constitutional? given that both sides agreed to them at one time (and it was when both were represented by attorneys and it excludes ANYONE not just homosexuals from staying past 9:00 pm)? I do NOT think this case will go to the US Supreme Court, given the issue that the term had been agreed to by both sides and applied not only to Homosexuals by Heterosexuals who were NOT married to one of the parents (and may have been aimed at Heterosexual relationships not Homosexual relationships when agreed to). The US Supreme Court will leave this up to the Texas courts.
On the other hand are such clauses constitutional? Do such clauses interfere with how the children are to be raised? Do they prevent "Great Harm" to the children? Remember we are NOT talking about the Mother and her lover, but her children. The key is NOT the relationship between the two women, but how does that affect the Children AND how does that affect the relationship between the Children and their father AND how the father wants them to be raised?
On appeal, if I was representing her, I would avoid the issue of the sex of her lover and concentrate on how this clause would affect her children, even if she had a male lover. Such relationships are more common AND they may be good case law saying how to a
A quick trip to Lexis indicates that Custody is a JURY issue in Texas, thus the Judge may NOT be able to make a modification of an existing Custody and Visitation order. HE has to schedule a JURY trial as to Custody, but does NOT have to do so to enforce a Divorce agreement (And it may NOT be legal for the Judge to schedule a Jury trial, since the time for one was in 2010 when the Divorce agreement was entered into). This is one of the reason you should deal with attorneys who practice in whatever state any legal action is occurring, they know that state's idiosyncratic laws.
Thus the Judge may be caught in the bind, he may NOT be able to modify the Custody order without granting A jury Trial, but no such request for a modification or Jury trial has been made. On the other hand, enforcement of the existing Divorce order is in front of him and it is proper for him to rule on it. i.e. he can NOT modify the Divorce Order, he can only enforce it.
As I said above, there is something more involved then Mother being a Lesbian, Given the reports that Custody is a Jury issue, modifying the Custody and Visitation Order may be possible at the present time, but its enforcement is.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).