Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you even care? It's not like exDH's girlfriends are going to molest or beat your kids.

Lol. This is legit the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You realize how many women are molested by the partner of their mother? Not a big stretch to think the same couldn't happen if the genders were reversed. I think you should put something in the PSA about sleepovers. But that will obviously apply to you as well.

You're wrong. Try reading some studies instead of just making up stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you even care? It's not like exDH's girlfriends are going to molest or beat your kids.

Lol. This is legit the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You realize how many women are molested by the partner of their mother? Not a big stretch to think the same couldn't happen if the genders were reversed. I think you should put something in the PSA about sleepovers. But that will obviously apply to you as well.

It's on the news every day. There are some parents with very poor judgement out there.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you even care? It's not like exDH's girlfriends are going to molest or beat your kids.

Lol. This is legit the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You realize how many women are molested by the partner of their mother? Not a big stretch to think the same couldn't happen if the genders were reversed. I think you should put something in the PSA about sleepovers. But that will obviously apply to you as well.

Lawyer PP here. I meant to write "waive," not "wave."

Lawyer PP here. I would encourage that a settlement agreement establish a three-year wait because the more stable spouse can easily wave the remaining time, but you cannot easily go back and amend the settlement to make the time period longer.

If your ex takes up with a druggie, stripper, somebody with a criminal history, or someone who is otherwise undesirable, you are going to want to have as much time as possible before the person enters your kids' lives. If, however, your ex takes up with a lovely person, you can always later agree in writing that that particular person can meet your kids sooner than three years.

My ex made me wait all three years before my now DH met my kids. He was jealous and hoped we would break up. I explained to now DH what was going on and he understood. After a year of dating, I told my kids that I was dating a very nice man, but that I wanted to make sure he was the right guy to be in their lives before they met him. I show them photos of him and talked about our dates. A couple of months after the three-year mark, they met him at a lovely dinner, he brought them gifts he picked out based on what I had told him about them, and we all went from there. As a second-time bride, I was in no hurry to get married again and we got married after almost 6 years together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Another big law attorney here. Yes, she can, but only as part of divorce proceedings. When I divorced, I made my husband agree to a clause in our settlement that barred him from having any significant other around our children until they had been dating for at least three years. I also barred him from bringing any friend (except for those listed in the agreement) around our children without prior approval from me. I agreed to be similarly bound. I also had a fine (and reimbursement of attorneys' fees needed to enforce the clause) attached to each violation. These clauses expire when our youngest child turns 14.

It has been 9 years since our divorce and we have done well for the most part. I had to enforce the clause once when he had a girlfriend of several months skulking around our kids and was claiming she was just a tenant. I gathered evidence she was more than a tenant. He called my bluff regarding enforcing the girlfriend clause, so I went to court and had him enjoined from having her around the kids. And I enforced the fine (no attorneys' fees because I handled the matter myself).

You can do a lot with a settlement agreement, but an agreement is only as strong as you are. My ex knows I will strangle him and send his soul to Hades if he brings any of his shady friends, exes, nextses, and drama around our children.

PP, I think the bolded idea is reasonable . . . but three years? That seems excessive, and punitive. How did you arrive at this number? Also, how did you "make" your ex agree to this?

I am curious as to how Lawyer PP would have handled the situation if he had married a girlfriend he dated for a year. Was there anything in your agreement that accounted for that relationship status change? There is no way in hell that I would have agreed to a prohibition like the one you described. Maybe a shorter time period, but 3 years is a very long time to not even MEET the significant other. It sounds like your attempt to protect your kids was primarily designed to prevent him from having any kind of serious romantic relationship, since I know of very few individuals who would be willing to date a person with children for 3 years before being able to meet those kids.

Lawyer PP here. The three-year requirement is for any significant other. Unsurprisingly, my ex is not stable enough to maintain a relationship for a year, much less three years. I have remarried and before the three-year period was up for my husband to meet my kids, I simply explained in increasing detail what was going on and the settlement agreement we had in place. Anyone who is marrying a divorced person with children must be ready to make certain concessions to the situation that the divorce created.

But, why did you feel like 3 years was necessary? Why not 2, or 1?

Lawyer PP here. I'm not going to lay out the circumstances leading to our divorce or any more personal info. I posted to let OP know some options, not to get your approval of my divorce settlement.

I can certainly understand how someone married to an unreliable person with a tendency to associate with flakes and losers would want to protect her kids, but 3 years really does seem like a long time for no contact at all. I would encourage the OP to limit any clause like this to a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been separated from my ex-DH for a year but we are not yet divorced. He cheated and wanted to end the marriage. He is now bringing a brand new gf (not even 6 weeks) around the children; having sleepovers when the kids are with him; bringing her to events where I will be etc. Can this be stopped since he's not yet my EXDH and we have very small children?

I'd be horrified that a 6 week gf is spending the night where my children are staying.

OP first meet with him and have a long talk. Do it nicely, explain how this is not good for the kids. Date her etc. his business. Sleep overs and having her around the kids unless it becomes serious needs to stop. He can either agree or go to court. Put it nicely but firm. He will likely not want to spend more money fighting so hopefully he will act like a responsible adult. If not....see your attorney asap.

Keep in mind there is a significant dollar cost associated with OP's desire to control her ex's life, too.

I don't know how you can determine that it's not "responsible" for the DH in question to let his kids meet his girlfriend unless you know the man and his girlfriend.

Having a gf of 6 weeks spending the night is really poor judgement. He is a married man fyi.
Bringing the gf to events is also bad, is upsetting to his wife. I can't imagine what part you didn't read or get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Another big law attorney here. Yes, she can, but only as part of divorce proceedings. When I divorced, I made my husband agree to a clause in our settlement that barred him from having any significant other around our children until they had been dating for at least three years. I also barred him from bringing any friend (except for those listed in the agreement) around our children without prior approval from me. I agreed to be similarly bound. I also had a fine (and reimbursement of attorneys' fees needed to enforce the clause) attached to each violation. These clauses expire when our youngest child turns 14.

It has been 9 years since our divorce and we have done well for the most part. I had to enforce the clause once when he had a girlfriend of several months skulking around our kids and was claiming she was just a tenant. I gathered evidence she was more than a tenant. He called my bluff regarding enforcing the girlfriend clause, so I went to court and had him enjoined from having her around the kids. And I enforced the fine (no attorneys' fees because I handled the matter myself).

You can do a lot with a settlement agreement, but an agreement is only as strong as you are. My ex knows I will strangle him and send his soul to Hades if he brings any of his shady friends, exes, nextses, and drama around our children.

PP, I think the bolded idea is reasonable . . . but three years? That seems excessive, and punitive. How did you arrive at this number? Also, how did you "make" your ex agree to this?

I am curious as to how Lawyer PP would have handled the situation if he had married a girlfriend he dated for a year. Was there anything in your agreement that accounted for that relationship status change? There is no way in hell that I would have agreed to a prohibition like the one you described. Maybe a shorter time period, but 3 years is a very long time to not even MEET the significant other. It sounds like your attempt to protect your kids was primarily designed to prevent him from having any kind of serious romantic relationship, since I know of very few individuals who would be willing to date a person with children for 3 years before being able to meet those kids.

Lawyer PP here. The three-year requirement is for any significant other. Unsurprisingly, my ex is not stable enough to maintain a relationship for a year, much less three years. I have remarried and before the three-year period was up for my husband to meet my kids, I simply explained in increasing detail what was going on and the settlement agreement we had in place. Anyone who is marrying a divorced person with children must be ready to make certain concessions to the situation that the divorce created.

So you got married to someone who had never met your kids? That is extremely bizarre.

Lawyer PP here. Is that what I wrote? I can't understand why some of you refuse to read.

That is what you wrote. That SO was barred from having a SO around your kids for three years and that you agreed to the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Another big law attorney here. Yes, she can, but only as part of divorce proceedings. When I divorced, I made my husband agree to a clause in our settlement that barred him from having any significant other around our children until they had been dating for at least three years. I also barred him from bringing any friend (except for those listed in the agreement) around our children without prior approval from me. I agreed to be similarly bound. I also had a fine (and reimbursement of attorneys' fees needed to enforce the clause) attached to each violation. These clauses expire when our youngest child turns 14.

It has been 9 years since our divorce and we have done well for the most part. I had to enforce the clause once when he had a girlfriend of several months skulking around our kids and was claiming she was just a tenant. I gathered evidence she was more than a tenant. He called my bluff regarding enforcing the girlfriend clause, so I went to court and had him enjoined from having her around the kids. And I enforced the fine (no attorneys' fees because I handled the matter myself).

You can do a lot with a settlement agreement, but an agreement is only as strong as you are. My ex knows I will strangle him and send his soul to Hades if he brings any of his shady friends, exes, nextses, and drama around our children.

PP, I think the bolded idea is reasonable . . . but three years? That seems excessive, and punitive. How did you arrive at this number? Also, how did you "make" your ex agree to this?

I am curious as to how Lawyer PP would have handled the situation if he had married a girlfriend he dated for a year. Was there anything in your agreement that accounted for that relationship status change? There is no way in hell that I would have agreed to a prohibition like the one you described. Maybe a shorter time period, but 3 years is a very long time to not even MEET the significant other. It sounds like your attempt to protect your kids was primarily designed to prevent him from having any kind of serious romantic relationship, since I know of very few individuals who would be willing to date a person with children for 3 years before being able to meet those kids.

Lawyer PP here. The three-year requirement is for any significant other. Unsurprisingly, my ex is not stable enough to maintain a relationship for a year, much less three years. I have remarried and before the three-year period was up for my husband to meet my kids, I simply explained in increasing detail what was going on and the settlement agreement we had in place. Anyone who is marrying a divorced person with children must be ready to make certain concessions to the situation that the divorce created.

But, why did you feel like 3 years was necessary? Why not 2, or 1?

Lawyer PP here. I'm not going to lay out the circumstances leading to our divorce or any more personal info. I posted to let OP know some options, not to get your approval of my divorce settlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Another big law attorney here. Yes, she can, but only as part of divorce proceedings. When I divorced, I made my husband agree to a clause in our settlement that barred him from having any significant other around our children until they had been dating for at least three years. I also barred him from bringing any friend (except for those listed in the agreement) around our children without prior approval from me. I agreed to be similarly bound. I also had a fine (and reimbursement of attorneys' fees needed to enforce the clause) attached to each violation. These clauses expire when our youngest child turns 14.

It has been 9 years since our divorce and we have done well for the most part. I had to enforce the clause once when he had a girlfriend of several months skulking around our kids and was claiming she was just a tenant. I gathered evidence she was more than a tenant. He called my bluff regarding enforcing the girlfriend clause, so I went to court and had him enjoined from having her around the kids. And I enforced the fine (no attorneys' fees because I handled the matter myself).

You can do a lot with a settlement agreement, but an agreement is only as strong as you are. My ex knows I will strangle him and send his soul to Hades if he brings any of his shady friends, exes, nextses, and drama around our children.

PP, I think the bolded idea is reasonable . . . but three years? That seems excessive, and punitive. How did you arrive at this number? Also, how did you "make" your ex agree to this?

I am curious as to how Lawyer PP would have handled the situation if he had married a girlfriend he dated for a year. Was there anything in your agreement that accounted for that relationship status change? There is no way in hell that I would have agreed to a prohibition like the one you described. Maybe a shorter time period, but 3 years is a very long time to not even MEET the significant other. It sounds like your attempt to protect your kids was primarily designed to prevent him from having any kind of serious romantic relationship, since I know of very few individuals who would be willing to date a person with children for 3 years before being able to meet those kids.

Lawyer PP here. The three-year requirement is for any significant other. Unsurprisingly, my ex is not stable enough to maintain a relationship for a year, much less three years. I have remarried and before the three-year period was up for my husband to meet my kids, I simply explained in increasing detail what was going on and the settlement agreement we had in place. Anyone who is marrying a divorced person with children must be ready to make certain concessions to the situation that the divorce created.

So you got married to someone who had never met your kids? That is extremely bizarre.

Lawyer PP here. Is that what I wrote? I can't understand why some of you refuse to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's an ass OP. Doesn't he know he was supposed to be learning his lesson, realizing how good he had it with you and beg you to take him back? I swear men are so dense

Jesus, there is so much trash hanging out on this forum. A man is bringing a girlfriend of six weeks around his young children and you think the problem here is that the wife is jealous?

You are incredibly stupid if you think that's what this is about. OP is pissed because he is happy. Happier than she is and happier than SHE thinks he is allowed to be. I'm sure the Ex's new girlfriend is younger and prettier and that sent OP off to bat shit crazy land

Bingo!

Here is the actual truth

I know you are upset and he messed up, but time to move on. And don't tell me I don't know how it feels. My ex beat me, had a baby with somebody else, and now brings all his gfs around our kid even though divorce decree says I need to meet them first.
I don't want to meet any of them nor has he offered and too bad for them that they are even wasting their time on him.
The woman are nice to our child. There is no reason why they shouldn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's an ass OP. Doesn't he know he was supposed to be learning his lesson, realizing how good he had it with you and beg you to take him back? I swear men are so dense

Jesus, there is so much trash hanging out on this forum. A man is bringing a girlfriend of six weeks around his young children and you think the problem here is that the wife is jealous?

You are incredibly stupid if you think that's what this is about. OP is pissed because he is happy. Happier than she is and happier than SHE thinks he is allowed to be. I'm sure the Ex's new girlfriend is younger and prettier and that sent OP off to bat shit crazy land

Bingo!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's an ass OP. Doesn't he know he was supposed to be learning his lesson, realizing how good he had it with you and beg you to take him back? I swear men are so dense

Jesus, there is so much trash hanging out on this forum. A man is bringing a girlfriend of six weeks around his young children and you think the problem here is that the wife is jealous?

Yup, pretty much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been separated from my ex-DH for a year but we are not yet divorced. He cheated and wanted to end the marriage. He is now bringing a brand new gf (not even 6 weeks) around the children; having sleepovers when the kids are with him; bringing her to events where I will be etc. Can this be stopped since he's not yet my EXDH and we have very small children?

I'd be horrified that a 6 week gf is spending the night where my children are staying.

OP first meet with him and have a long talk. Do it nicely, explain how this is not good for the kids. Date her etc. his business. Sleep overs and having her around the kids unless it becomes serious needs to stop. He can either agree or go to court. Put it nicely but firm. He will likely not want to spend more money fighting so hopefully he will act like a responsible adult. If not....see your attorney asap.

Keep in mind there is a significant dollar cost associated with OP's desire to control her ex's life, too.

I don't know how you can determine that it's not "responsible" for the DH in question to let his kids meet his girlfriend unless you know the man and his girlfriend.