A Houston Chronicle story reports that a judge in that city has prevented the father leaving the child alone with any man unless a relative by “blood or adoption”.
Because, you know, men are all voracious sexual predators. In this case, incidentally, there is no evidence of any abuse and no accusations have been made. Although, if they had, it would presumably be against the father rather than any other adult male in the world. The article points out that this, as written, excludes the child from being alone with male teachers, pastors and doctors.
Of course it’s actually aimed at the father’s husband, as he’s a gay man who went to Connecticut to get married. Not explicitly, of course, that’s just an assumption. Make up your own mind whether the ruling is objectionable due to being aimed explicitly at men, implicitly at gays or just for being stupid.
Yeah, because not only are all men sexual predators, but all gays are NAMBLA members who can’t look at an underage child without wantin’ some of that :rolleyes:
When I first read the OP, I thought the court had found him to be at risk for prostituting the child(ren). But no, just a blatently anti-gay poke at the now-married couple.
The judge is expanding on a sanction that’s already an insult in it’s original form: the “morality clause” aka “your mom is a slut” rule, that (usually she) may not have other men in the home when she has custody. I once had to duck in the closet of a woman I was dating when the ex brought her son over without prior notice to retrieve his skateboard.
No kidding shouldn’t she be punished for her lack of judgement. She entered into a marriage with a gay man and thus exposed her children to a life of contact with a potential pedophile!
Counseling? Confession? Practicing for the chess tournament? Wants to give the child advice out of the ears of the bullies? Why would any adult need to be alone with a child?
I hope it reassures you that most churches and schools have guidelines to prevent any child from being with only one adult. “Never be alone with a child who isn’t your kid” is just common sense for today’s insane and stupid world.
What if his teacher is secretly Spider Man? Or a Mason? Or a Straight Dope reader? How does that affect the student/teacher relationship?
Only, I think, because children spend much, much more time alone with men they are related to than men they are unrelated too. It does not mean that a relative is actually more likely to feel a pedophilic* attraction to a child than a non-relative.
I agree that this ruling seems absurd and unjust (and homophobic).
*Is that a word, and if so, is that how you spell it?
So he can’t even have a male doctor, or a teacher? What if the principal of his school is male, and he gets called to the principal? Or what if he’s the last kid off of the bus, and his bus driver’s a man?
(I can’t imagine this being held up on appeal. What say you, legal types?)
Unless every male the kid comes in contact with is served a legal notice how could they be prosecuted on this? I think the only people that can be prosecuted are the people like the gay couple and the mom.
Take hours to find and declined to do so. Isn’t that why paralegals were invented?
To be honest, I expect it to be overturned. You know how hard it is to find an all female doctor’s office? all female teachers? all female religious workers? It is literally impossible for someone to avoid being alone with a male at some point in any given amount of time, let alone an entire childhood.
