Do I have any options, I've heard no

[orais007]

Thanks for the response, but come on "take the bull by the horns", he sneaks in late at night and leaves in the morning, what is going to happen if I were to show up at the door to meet the new alpha male? I think that's called "domestic disturbance" in most states.  No I don't know him, but the kind of guy that has to sneak into a home in the middle of the night and out before the children wake up just to spend time with a woman is a bit desparate and it's that desparation that concerns me.

[orais007]

I understand your response and I'm not hoping to interfere with my ex's life, I couldn't care less about what she's doing, if it didn't involve my children.  As parents we have that responsibility to watch out for them, tell them not to run by the pool so they don't slip and hurt themselves, don't talk to strangers with puppies.  But the times when someone else is watching them, doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about their welfare, we all make mistakes and have trusted the wrong person with money or something of value to us,  would you be willing to take that risk with your child?  The "no overnight "sounds best, does anyone know how I could request such a thing.
Thanks for your reply and opinion.

[gemini3]

I'm not just trying to defend myself and what I am doing.  You are obviously very upset about this issue, and I can appreciate that, but I don't think it's fair for you to judge me in that way.  You are making an awful lot of assumptions with that statement.

Regardless of what you see hyped up in the media, you cannot do anything if you have no grounds.  You still have not stated any grounds for your suspicion.  

I'm not supporting your stbx's lifestyle choices, I'm simply offering an alternative point of view.  It doesn't matter to me whether you choose to have overnight visits now, or in the future.  The point I was making was that decisions you make now, sometimes in haste and full of emotion, will affect you for many years.  You have to make these choices wisely and think them through thoroughly.  It's very expensive to change your mind when it comes to these matters.  Trust me, my fiance is there now (and I am there right along with him).

I'm sorry that you're going through such a hard time.

[mistoffolees]

>Thanks for the imput, but you're just defending yourself and
>what you're doing. You obviously do not have young daughters
>of your own to be concerned for. If you did and took a moment
>to read the newspaper, read statistics, watch TV, you would be
>concerned with any other man being in the house with your
>children, it only takes one "nice" guy to change a life.
>They're all nice guys until found otherwise.  I have no
>problem sending the women I see home at the end of the day,
>they have a home and I have one for that reason,(and it's a
>sign of respect towards the children)  I can spend the night
>without my children being involved on off nights.  If it isn't
>so wrong then why does she have to sneak him in?  
>Sure I may be very "emotional" about this, but sometimes
>that's part of being a parent, the worst part is saying "if I
>had only done something sooner".  If we don't watch out for
>our children, you can bet there is someone out there that is
>watching them.
>

Sorry, but you're no longer in the position of being able to watch your daughter 24/7. When you divorced, you and your ex-wife each became responsible for your time.

You can ask the court for an order for no overnight guests and that's not terribly unreasonable. But you're not in a position to start making implied accusations like the above. Your ex WILL have someone new in her life and that's no longer any of your business.

[greatdad]

>
>>Thanks for the imput, but you're just defending yourself and
>>what you're doing. You obviously do not have young daughters
>>of your own to be concerned for. If you did and took a
>moment
>>to read the newspaper, read statistics, watch TV, you would
>be
>>concerned with any other man being in the house with your
>>children, it only takes one "nice" guy to change a life.
>>They're all nice guys until found otherwise.  I have no
>>problem sending the women I see home at the end of the day,
>>they have a home and I have one for that reason,(and it's a
>>sign of respect towards the children)  I can spend the night
>>without my children being involved on off nights.  If it
>isn't
>>so wrong then why does she have to sneak him in?  
>>Sure I may be very "emotional" about this, but sometimes
>>that's part of being a parent, the worst part is saying "if
>I
>>had only done something sooner".  If we don't watch out for
>>our children, you can bet there is someone out there that is
>>watching them.
>>
>
>Sorry, but you're no longer in the position of being able to
>watch your daughter 24/7. When you divorced, you and your
>ex-wife each became responsible for your time.
>
>You can ask the court for an order for no overnight guests and
>that's not terribly unreasonable. But you're not in a position
>to start making implied accusations like the above. Your ex
>WILL have someone new in her life and that's no longer any of
>your business.
>
 I disagree that it is none of your business........it is your business when and /or IF it negatively impacts your child.Just because your divorced it does not relieve you of you legal and moral obligations to make decisions and judgement calls in the best interest of your child.
It is a cop out to say get over it, your divorced.
My caveat will be, that this is when it pertains to the effect on the children, as I do agree that what the ex does ( as long as it doesnt negatively affect the child) is not your affair. Just be sure your properly analyzing your own motives and do what is right, whatever that may be.

[mistoffolees]

> I disagree that it is none of your business........it is your
>business when and /or IF it negatively impacts your child.Just
>because your divorced it does not relieve you of you legal and
>moral obligations to make decisions and judgement calls in the
>best interest of your child.
>It is a cop out to say get over it, your divorced.
>My caveat will be, that this is when it pertains to the effect
>on the children, as I do agree that what the ex does ( as long
>as it doesnt negatively affect the child) is not your affair.
>Just be sure your properly analyzing your own motives and do
>what is right, whatever that may be.


You can feel whatever you want, but since both parents have joint legal custody, the mother has every right to live her life without someone interfering and introducing himself to her new boyfriend, for example.

If there is a danger to your kids, you have the right to get involved, of course. But there's no evidence of that here.

You also have the right to ask the court to specify no overnight visitors in the agreement. But if there's no court order, you can't control what your ex is doing.

It seems to me that there are a lot more cases of people interfering where they shouldn't be than vice versa.

[mistoffolees]

>Thanks for the response, but come on "take the bull by the
>horns", he sneaks in late at night and leaves in the morning,
>what is going to happen if I were to show up at the door to
>meet the new alpha male? I think that's called "domestic
>disturbance" in most states.  No I don't know him, but the
>kind of guy that has to sneak into a home in the middle of the
>night and out before the children wake up just to spend time
>with a woman is a bit desparate and it's that desparation that
>concerns me.

First, maybe he's not desperate, but is trying not to be visible to the kids. Misguided, perhaps, but maybe he's TRYING to do the right thing.

Second, even if he's desperate, so what? Is the fact that he's desperate for companionship harming the kids? You have to prove that.

If you ask the court to not allow overnight visitors, they'll probably grant it and that's reasonable. But automatically assuming that this person is evil and confronting him is wrong - not to mention likely to get you in trouble.

[Davy]

>You can feel whatever you want, but since both parents have joint >legal custody, the mother has every right to live her life without >someone interfering and introducing himself to her new boyfriend, for >example.

I see this particular case as a father trying to find a way to protect his children from a potential danger and he seems focused on the children's well-being .  To imply or state jealousy or interference with sbxw lifestyle grants far to much credibility and significance to HER.  This is NOT ABOUT HER ...   BTW, a parent's desire and ability to protect his children in a civilized and meaningful manner far outweights a government document.

>If there is a danger to your kids, you have the right to get involved, of >course. But there's no evidence of that here.

Quite frankly, there is no need for evidence because nobody has been charged or is being prosecuted....and won't be as long as the mother approves and condons the environment.

>You also have the right to ask the court to specify no overnight visitors >in the agreement. But if there's no court order, you can't control what >your ex is doing.

You're only kidding yourself if you think a court order will protect children.

>It seems to me that there are a lot more cases of people interfering >where they shouldn't be than vice versa.

Again, this is not about HER ... it's about the kids.

I would suggest the father approach (in person) HER and HIM in a non-confortational or accusatory manner and briefly TELL them to STOP the nocturnal sneaks in front of the children at this time.  No introductions are necessary !  And don't be surprised if the HIM part of the equation agrees and will at least give HIM pause that he's likely screwing up his life.

[mistoffolees]

>
>>You can feel whatever you want, but since both parents have
>joint >legal custody, the mother has every right to live her
>life without >someone interfering and introducing himself to
>her new boyfriend, for >example.
>
>I see this particular case as a father trying to find a way to
>protect his children from a potential danger and he seems
>focused on the children's well-being .  To imply or state
>jealousy or interference with sbxw lifestyle grants far to
>much credibility and significance to HER.  This is NOT ABOUT
>HER ...   BTW, a parent's desire and ability to protect his
>children in a civilized and meaningful manner far outweights a
>government document.

Sorry, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that the new BF is any danger to the kids. Last time I checked, 'guilty until proven innocent' was wrong.

If he has any evidence that the guy is a danger, then he should take action. Absent such evidence, it appears to be jealousy.

>
>>If there is a danger to your kids, you have the right to get
>involved, of >course. But there's no evidence of that here.
>
>Quite frankly, there is no need for evidence because nobody
>has been charged or is being prosecuted....and won't be as
>long as the mother approves and condons the environment.

That's true. He hasn't been charged or prosecuted - you've labeled him guilty without a trial or evidence.

>
>>You also have the right to ask the court to specify no
>overnight visitors >in the agreement. But if there's no court
>order, you can't control what >your ex is doing.
>
>You're only kidding yourself if you think a court order will
>protect children.

Sorry to disillusion you, but this is a country of laws. Are they perfect? No. But they work more often than not.

If you don't think that the court is going to protect the child and you're convinced that any new person brought into the ex's life is automatically guilty of something, then your only choice is to take the kids and go live on a desert island.

>
>>It seems to me that there are a lot more cases of people
>interfering >where they shouldn't be than vice versa.
>
>Again, this is not about HER ... it's about the kids.

Yep. And the kids benefit from having a happy mother who is emotionally well rather than a mother who is being stalked by their father.

If you have any evidence that the kids are being harmed, it might be otherwise, but so far you haven't presented it.

>
>I would suggest the father approach (in person) HER and HIM in
>a non-confortational or accusatory manner and briefly TELL
>them to STOP the nocturnal sneaks in front of the children at
>this time.  No introductions are necessary !  And don't be
>surprised if the HIM part of the equation agrees and will at
>least give HIM pause that he's likely screwing up his life.

I don't have any problem with approaching her and telling her that you don't think it's appropriate. I just don't think that interfering with him is appropriate.

[gemini3]

In a previous post I asked this person if he had spoken to the kids about the new boyfriend.  There was never a response to this, so I don't know if he has or not.  He did say that his stbx and the new boyfriend have spent time together with the children, so the children are going to have an opinion about the new guy.  If it's about the kids, why isn't anyone asking them how they feel?  They might like the new guy, and he might be a positive thing in their lives.  Maybe the poster doesn't want to hear about that?  

While I agree that sneaking the boyfriend in wasn't the best course of action, it's worth noting that she was at least attempting to not flaunt her overnight visits in front of the children.  That, to me, shows some concern for her children.  Obviously not having overnight visits when the children are there would be the best choice, but I'm not seeing any blatent disregard for the children.