No, he will not get any traction on this. Wasting his money. But, stranger things have happened. Now, if your significant other were to abuse your child then all bets are off.
Is it possible that he’s doing this in an attempt to get more time with the child, since you have primary custody?
don5327 is correct that cohabitation is not a factor unless there is cause but my thinking is that your ex has remarried and maybe is attempting to make up for some lost time with his child. He may be using the fact that he’s married as a means to show the court he could provide a more stable home life…
Have you tried discussing it with each other and tried to compromise or are you both going straight to threatening court?
First of all thanks for the comments…
Stepmother your advice is always so great…actually he is threatening going to court.
Interestingly enough, all these threats come around my entry to the court for a child support modification as the ex is making 4 times the salary he made when the original order was ordered by the court. Also, I dont think he really wants more time with our child because he had visitation rights from Thursday - Monday every other weekend since she was 3 but of his own accord reduced it to Friday - Sunday every other weekend and has been just getting our child Friday - Sunday every other weekend for the last 6 years. And since he did not want to see her, I was happy to have her and figured it was his loss. But now all of a sudden he wants custody and says he has grounds because of the cohabitation. And actually my boyfriend is great with my child , abuse wouldn’t even be a consideration at all.
He has no grounds because of co-habitation. Hell, if he felt that way, then in his mind, wouldn’t he have MORE grounds when you were a ‘single mom’ and had NO help, and he was married and “more stable”?? Jeez Loise. He co-habitated before HE got married and I assume he had his daughter for visitation during that time. Double standard?
I think he’s blowing steam because he doesn’t want to pay more child support.
I would have to agree that he’s probably doing this because of support also. There’s not much chance that after 6 years of this schedule that he has put in place, he would get the courts to change it, especially without cause. If he’s just wanting to “officially” have the custody changed then he’s wasting his time and money. In the grand scheme of things, it does no good. He has more time ordered by the court now than he is taking…make sure you document as much of this as you can in case he does make good on the threats.
My suggestion is that you remind him that he already has a court order for additional time that he can still have. That there is really no need to go back to court for custody because it’s unlikely that it will be changed. The only reason I would see for custody to change hands would be if it’s in the child’s best interest and I don’t see the parent who has chosed to decreased time with the child gaining primary custody.
Here’s an artical I found a couple years ago on CNN about cohabitation. It may not look right but I had to cut and paste it:
"CNN.com - It’s legal to play house in North Carolina - Jul 20, 2006
It's legal to play house in North Carolina
Judge lifts state's cohabitation ban, calls it unconstitutional
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Posted: 6:44 p.m. EDT (22:44 GMT)
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A state
judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried
couples from living together is unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely
enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had
to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend.
Deborah Hobbs, 41, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County,
near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job
after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for
three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in
- State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late
Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs’ constitutional right to liberty.
He cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.
That ruling showed that “the government has no business regulating
relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own
home,” Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North
Carolina, said in a statement.
She added that “the idea that the government would criminalize people’s
choice to live together out of wedlock in this day and age defies logic
and common sense.”
The suit named Smith, the state and Attorney General Roy Cooper as
defendants. Cooper had argued that Hobbs couldn’t challenge the law
because she wasn’t charged with a crime.
A Cooper spokeswoman said Thursday that lawyers had not decided whether to
appeal.
Hobbs said Thursday she was “very happy for myself and for everyone else
this law has affected.” She added that she hasn’t thought about applying
for another job with the sheriff’s office.
Rudinger said that since 1997, the law has spawned about 36 criminal cases
in North Carolina. State officials have said the number of people actually
convicted under the law – formally known as the fornication and adultery
statute – is not clear.
The law also has been used to deny compensation to crime victims, child
custody, health benefits, probation and parole, Rudinger said.
The law states, in part: “If any man and woman, not being married to each
other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together,
they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
About 144,000 unmarried couples live together in North Carolina, according
to the 2000 census. The ACLU says along with North Carolina, Virginia,
West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota have laws
that prohibit cohabitation.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
Here’s my take on it for what it’s worth. We’re talking about a daughter here…in a house with a non-related male. Could the whole thing be because he is frightened about the possibility of molestation? He may not have any reason to believe that your BF would do that, but that still doesn’t mean that the fear isn’t there. Could he be resorting to this measure as a way to attempt to “protect” his child?
My bet is that this is what is really going on with him…and it’s possible that because he has no true reason to suspect your BF of ill-doing, he’s unwilling to directly voice his fears.
So, while he has no legal basis to obtain joint or sole custody of your child, he is probably trying to control the home environment for her “safety” with threats of court.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by athos[/i] [br]Here's my take on it for what it's worth. We're talking about a daughter here....in a house with a non-related male. Could the whole thing be because he is frightened about the possibility of molestation? He may not have any reason to believe that your BF would do that, but that still doesn't mean that the fear isn't there. Could he be resorting to this measure as a way to attempt to "protect" his child?My bet is that this is what is really going on with him…and it’s possible that because he has no true reason to suspect your BF of ill-doing, he’s unwilling to directly voice his fears.
So, while he has no legal basis to obtain joint or sole custody of your child, he is probably trying to control the home environment for her “safety” with threats of court.
I can see that this may be a reason behind what he’s doing but if that were the case would it not be more reasonable to take the extra time that he’s already supposed to have so that there would be less time in the mother’s home? Then after taking the extra time, which would almost be equal time, he could have a consent for custody to be changed.
The most telling aspect of this would be if the move in has been a recent change. If she has been living with the bf for a while and the ex only brought this up after she filed for modification instead of after she moved in, then I would say that his interest is more in the money he may have to start paying out rather than a concern for his daughter. At least that is the way the courts would probably see it. I think they have seen enough cases with a parent accusing the other of abuse, neglect or molesting a child just out of spite or anger that they can tell the difference…
As a side note: if this were my child, and I was concerned for her safety in that aspect, I wouldn’t give a damn who’s feelings were hurt in my expressing my concern. I would voice my fears loudly in the hopes that if there is an ulterior motive it would be squashed to know that that person and the situation is being watched closely. If I even had a suspicion that the person my child spent time with were in ANY way being inappropriate my ex would hear about it first. But that’s just my opinion…
Agreed. I glossed over the section where she said that he had reduced visitation. Yep. I think you’re right. He’s looking out for his money.
S
No, this would not form a legal basis for modification of custody unless he could prove there was some impact on the child.
P.S. Please feel free to bring up this or any other topic on our live call-in show every Wednesday at 11:00 a.m. EST. Visit radio.rosen.com/live for details
Helena M. Nevicosi
Attorney with Rosen Law Firm
4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
919.787.6668 main phone
919.787.6361 main fax
Charlotte Office
301 McCullough Drive
Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28262
Main Phone: (704)307.4600
Main Fax: (704) 9343.0044
Durham & Chapel Hill Office
1829 East Franklin Street
Building 600
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 321.0780
The response posted above is based upon the limited factual information made available and is not intended as a full and complete response to the question. The only reliable manner to obtain complete and adequate legal advice is to consult with an attorney, fully explain your situation, and allow the attorney sufficient opportunity to research the applicable law and facts required to render an accurate opinion. The basic information provided above is intended as a public service only, a full discussion with an attorney should be undertaken before taking any action. The information posted on this forum is available for public viewing and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship with any individual. These answers are provided for informational purposes only, a person should consult with their own individual legal counsel before taking any action that could affect their legal rights or obligations.
I have been divorced for five years. My ex and I have one child. I have primary custody. He is remarried and lived with his current wife for two years prior to their marriage. We have no clauses about cohabitation in any of our consent orders regarding custody. However, my ex is all of a sudden making a big deal of the fact that our child and I live with my significant other. Does he have any legal basis for trying to get custody or joint custody based on this?