should I sue if separated ex is screwing around?

[tf11]

NC has laws regarding screwing around if you are separated but still married.  You can sue the 3rd party (the lover)  for something called 'criminal conversation.'
I guess it establishes the ex as being an adulterer as well.

I am wondering if I am thinking of all the pros and cons for doing this.

In a way, I want to document what she is doing.  At the same time, I am wondering if I should 'rock the boat,' as we are in a phase of this separation where we have agreed on some main issues like custody and property distribution.


I feel like I should document this stuff though (get a private investigator and sue) so that I can establish a record of her behavior.

I also feel that since I am refraining from dating right away because I don't think it's a good thing for my son to see right now and also because it is still technically adultery, that she should have restraint as well.

Does that make sense?

We can't get officially divorced for a while (more than 9 months away).

Am I thinking this through?

Will the sh*t storm that happens (and it will be a huge one) be worth it?

Anyone else successfully sue a 3rd party for something like this?

Thanks....

[williaer]

That has to be a very tough decision to make. I would say- perhaps you can document it and hold on to it? If she agrees to all of the things you want in the divorce and you get your decree exactly how you want it- then you can just leave it alone...if not, perhaps it can be a bargaining tool???? Not black-mail, but  a motivational tool to get make sure everything is equitable?

I think you are also right to not date- you must play by whatever rules you expect her to follow...only makes sense.

[reagantrooper]

Just document her behavior and worry about the bigger stuff. In other words give her enough rope to hang herself.

[BelleMere]

Only you know what is really important to you in this . . . if your interest is making sure you have the time you want with your kids, and you have basically agreed on that, then I wouldn't push this. I might bring it up to her, personally, tho and just ask her to keep her "dating" to those nights/days when the kids are with you - and if you think it might work, you could tell her about this law and that you are considering suing her under that law if she can't do a better job of protecting the kids from witnessing that behavior. Unless she's having sex with multiple men in front of your kids, tho, there really isn't much you could do about this.

One thing to think about is that suing over this would cost money, which you might want for other things (plus it will cost your STBX money that could otherwise help support the kids), AND it will take a long time, so it could take as long to get this to court as it will to get your divorce finalized, and you have no guarantee that you'll achieve much, other than money spent and increased conflict (which will ultimately impact your kids.)

But one of the harsh realities of divorce is that you really can not control what the other party does . . . . sometimes you can get wording in the court order that will help (like "no unrelated members of the opposite sex may spend the night while the kids are in the house") but otherwise, as tough as it is, you won't have much say. Now might be a good time to find ways to talk about your concerns, rather than go to court.

[mistoffolees]

Before doing anything, what are you trying to do?

I don't think it's terribly harmful for your son to see her making new acquaintences. As long as that's all he sees, why do you think it's hurting him?

Your state will vary, but in OK, the judge would laugh at you. Screwing around -even if no divorce has been filed- is not a criminal activity, nor can it have any bearing on whether a divorce is granted. It can't even have any bearing on custody decisions unless one parent can show that it's harming the children.

If she'd doing it in front of the kids, I'd take action - but via Child Welfare Services (or whatever it's called in your state). If she's discreet, drop it. It's just not worth the pain and expense it will cause.

Things to consider:
1. You're going to be dealing with her for many years (at least until your son is 18 and probably much longer). Do you want to do that with a decent relationship or do you want to hate each other?
2. You've got the important stuff settled. Why mess it up? If you do this, all your agreements go out the window and you're going to have an expensive, adversarial battle. To top it off, in today's world, even if you convinced the judge that she was an evil adulterer, it's not going to change things much.
3. Why does it concern you? Your old life is over. Face it. You're either looking for revenge or you're still so hurt you can't think straight. Neither excuse is much of a reason for ruining the rest of your life.
4. What do you hope to accomplish? If you've already settlled custody and financial stuff, what do you expect to get out of it. In other words, in what way would your world be better if you did it? I can't think of a single thing.
5. You didn't mention how old your son is. If he's over about 4, it will become clear to him that YOU are the aggressor here. Things seem pretty stable here, but you'll be the one shaking them up. Is that the way you want your son to see you?

Document everything you wish. If she tries to pull something on you, you can use it. But don't do anything with it except in self-defense.

[tf11]

>Before doing anything, what are you trying to do?
>
>I don't think it's terribly harmful for your son to see her
>making new acquaintences. As long as that's all he sees, why
>do you think it's hurting him?
>
>Your state will vary, but in OK, the judge would laugh at you.
>Screwing around -even if no divorce has been filed- is not a
>criminal activity, nor can it have any bearing on whether a
>divorce is granted. It can't even have any bearing on custody
>decisions unless one parent can show that it's harming the
>children.
>
>If she'd doing it in front of the kids, I'd take action - but
>via Child Welfare Services (or whatever it's called in your
>state). If she's discreet, drop it. It's just not worth the
>pain and expense it will cause.
>
>Things to consider:
>1. You're going to be dealing with her for many years (at
>least until your son is 18 and probably much longer). Do you
>want to do that with a decent relationship or do you want to
>hate each other?
>2. You've got the important stuff settled. Why mess it up? If
>you do this, all your agreements go out the window and you're
>going to have an expensive, adversarial battle. To top it off,
>in today's world, even if you convinced the judge that she was
>an evil adulterer, it's not going to change things much.
>3. Why does it concern you? Your old life is over. Face it.
>You're either looking for revenge or you're still so hurt you
>can't think straight. Neither excuse is much of a reason for
>ruining the rest of your life.
>4. What do you hope to accomplish? If you've already settlled
>custody and financial stuff, what do you expect to get out of
>it. In other words, in what way would your world be better if
>you did it? I can't think of a single thing.
>5. You didn't mention how old your son is. If he's over about
>4, it will become clear to him that YOU are the aggressor
>here. Things seem pretty stable here, but you'll be the one
>shaking them up. Is that the way you want your son to see
>you?
>
>Document everything you wish. If she tries to pull something
>on you, you can use it. But don't do anything with it except
>in self-defense.

I guess everything can have a positive spin if worded the correct way.

I guess one person's "making new acquaintances" is another person's "sleeping around."

And no, I'm not making any assumptions about you personally..I just think  that the "spin" you put on this is very important. I never said anything about "making new acquaintances." If you word it like that, it makes it look a lot less serious than I think it is...and makes me look like I' m trying to be super controlling or something.

By all means, please have fun, make friends and acquaintences...but I just dont think it's appropriate in some circumstances to "sleep around"...

Point number 1:
Thats the trick, jeopardize the current "harmony" over this issue or not? Is it a big enough deal? I'm not sure yet.

POint number 2:
See above...

Point number 3:
Well, on point number 3, I am going to have to disagree with you. I am over her. I could care less if she does the whole Chicago Bears Football team on national TV...LOL... What I am concerned with, is how it affects my son. Do you really think that seeing those kinds of things is healthy for a young child?
That's just not my idea of being a role model. It's also against the law. My "world" would be better if I know my son is not exposed to behavior like that. I happen to think it's the parents responsibility to be a good role model.
I'm not sure I understand how it would "ruin my world."

Point number 4:
I can think of a pretty good reason:
Make sure my son does not see that kind of behavior. (At least make her think twice before doing it.)

Point number 5:
Well, I'm not so sure that he would view me as the "bad guy." That sounds rather presumptive to me. I think if you assume that mommy is going to try to alienate him from me as a result of this, then it's a possibility, but, to be honest, any time I do something "she doesn't like," it's a possibility. We have equal time with him, so it's not as likely that she could alienate him compared to if she had sole custody.

To sum up, I cant help that judges and society don't really care about this issue. All I know is I dont really like my son getting the idea that sleeping around in this manner is ok.

Sorry, but that's just my opinion.

And yes, I'm sure some judges in some circumstances might laugh at that by itself.
(That doesn't make it right.)
But, as part of a larger picture, it simply tells a piece of the story.

[mistoffolees]

If you'd stop being angry for a moment and listen to the advice you asked for:

I never said that there's no difference between making acquaintences and sleeping around. But if your ex is discreet, how is your son supposed to know that the guy he sees every once in a while is a friend or a lover (or is he even old enough to know what that means?)

The point is that you need to be concerned about reality - not your fears about what is happening. If your wife isn't taking her new guy into the bed room right in front of your son, your concerns are unfounded.

I already stated that if she's doing something in front of your son, that you have an issue for Child Welfare. If she's not doing it in front of the son, drop it-it's irrelevant.

[annemichellesdad]

Criminal conversation was a tort in the same relative class as alienation of affections. Most states have abolished this tort in recent years. I don't if NC still has it on the books, but you should make certain that it is before you waste any time thinking along this route, especially if your information initially came from a non-attorney.

[jilly]

I'm in NC and can tell you that the alienation of affections law is still in effect here.  As a matter of fact, there have been some publicized cases in the past few years.  One was filed as a result of a marriage breaking up over an online relationship.

[annemichellesdad]

>I'm in NC and can tell you that the alienation of affections
>law is still in effect here.  As a matter of fact, there have
>been some publicized cases in the past few years.  One was
>filed as a result of a marriage breaking up over an online
>relationship.

That's good to know. As I said, most states have abolished it. Here is the law doing so in GA:

Title 51, Chapter 1, Section 17 (51-1-17)
Adultery, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation with a wife or husband shall not give a right of action to the person's spouse. Rights of action for adultery, alienation of affections, or criminal conversation are abolished.

Now, read it again carefully and then look below to see if the appelate court's ruling makes any sense...:


HYMAN v. MOLDOVAN et al. 65886.
(166 Ga. App. 891) (305 SE2d 648) (1983)

Appellant filed suit against his former wife, her parents, and her present husband, alleging that they had conspired to alienate the affections of appellant's minor son from appellant. Appellees' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, alternatively, lack of personal jurisdiction of appellees were granted by the trial court. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the statute abolishes only those alienation of affection suits which involve the loss of spousal affection, and that it does not apply to a case in which the alienation of the affections of a minor child is alleged. However, there is no such limiting language in the statute and we do not intend to place such a strained construction on the statute.

Inasmuch as the main cause of action which appellant alleged in his complaint has been abolished statutorily, the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint.