# No men alone with that child, says Texas judge **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 25, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072 "2011-08-25T18:57:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/41 "2011-08-26T17:36:02Z")
Apparently _he_ really cares, because he’s appealing. However, the next time the legal system shits on _you_, I’ll be sure to spare you my sympathy, because hey, you can always ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/42 "2011-08-26T17:58:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Apparently _he_ really cares, because he’s appealing. However, the next time the legal system shits on _you_, I’ll be sure to spare you my sympathy, because hey, you can always ignore it. Thanks for the unwanted snark. My question still stands: What are the chances that this ruling is going to have teeth in real world situations? Is he going to be monitored in any way? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/43 "2011-08-26T18:43:16Z")
So if we write a really loathesome law, but everyone ignores it because they know it’s loathesome, it’s fine? Man, **tdn** , you’re a creeper \*and \*retarded. Such a jackpot for some lucky waitress. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/44 "2011-08-26T18:51:18Z")
And it only takes one person to not ignore it to make life hell for the guy. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/45 "2011-08-26T18:52:52Z")
Can someone who’s NOT a snarky jackass please answer my question? I understand that it’s a stupid ruling and needs to be appealed. I get that. I agree. That wasn’t my question. ---
**Author:** ![TXCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/76d3ee/32.png) [@TXCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TXCowboy)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/46 "2011-08-26T19:11:00Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > My question still stands: What are the chances that this ruling is going to have teeth in real world situations? Is he going to be monitored in any way? The article doesn’t really say what that Mothers view of this all is (other than it came up in a custody hearing) but if she is against the kids being alone with the new husband, all it takes is the following: Mom: “So kids what did you do at dad’s house this weekend when you visited?” Kids: “Well Saturday night we watched TV with daddys husband while daddy went and got pizza.” Mom:WHAT!! He left you alone!! Calling lawyer…Stop all visitations, strip him of his parental rights! He broke the judges ruling!! ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/47 "2011-08-26T19:12:52Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Can someone who’s NOT a snarky jackass please answer my question? > > I understand that it’s a stupid ruling and needs to be appealed. I get that. I agree. > > That wasn’t my question. If you read the article, it seems that his ex-wife is on board with this (or at least her lawyer is), and so it stands to reason she will try to enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/48 "2011-08-26T19:14:09Z")
> [@TXCowboy](#): > > The article doesn’t really say what that Mothers view of this all is Yeah, I wondered about that too. Hopefully she’s not jaded like that and would let it slide, but we don’t know either way. Anyone who wants to make the guy’s life hell certainly could. I just wonder if anyone does. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/49 "2011-08-26T19:15:10Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Thanks for the unwanted snark. > > My question still stands: What are the chances that this ruling is going to have teeth in real world situations? Is he going to be monitored in any way? You know how custody proceedings work, right? ETA: Left the reply window open for a really long time. And I’m not a snarky jackass! I’m just a jackass. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/50 "2011-08-26T19:18:05Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > If you read the article, it seems that his ex-wife is on board with this (or at least her lawyer is), and so it stands to reason she will try to enforce it. Re-reading it, it says that it was “appropriate”, but she came across as a little neutral on it. But since she doesn’t say that it’s outrageous or ridiculous, then yeah, maybe she would. That’s sad. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/51 "2011-08-26T19:20:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You know how custody proceedings work, right? I’ve heard stories but have never been through it. I was wondering a little more along the lines teachers, pastors, and doctors. His ex is obviously a bit more worrisome. ---
**Author:** ![TXCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/76d3ee/32.png) [@TXCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TXCowboy)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/52 "2011-08-26T19:25:54Z")
I would say the mother had a lot to do with this ruling, especially since the dad was trying to get custody of the kids. No way do I agree with the judge or am I trying to defend his reasoning for the ruling, but the only reason I can see that the judge would even make such a ruling is if the mom and/or her lawyers brought it up and gave some reason they thought it was necessary. Texas judges are known for being “pro mom” in most divorces here. My Ex threatened me with “having her lawyer do something” one time when she found out (through my boys) that my finance had kept them alone at my house for about an hour one Saturday because I had to run into work. She hit the ceiling and told me I better not ever leave her kids with someone who wasn’t family again or she would call her lawyer and take me back to court. Of course she kinda dropped it and shut up when I reminded her about the boys telling me about how they all spent the night at her boyfriends house one night. (Of couse she slept on the couch and nothting happened…:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/53 "2011-08-26T19:26:20Z")
An unenforceable law is often enacted due to either physical or political realities. As noted, there is no reasonable way the family will live together, or share custody, without the Father’s Husband being alone with the child at least occasionally. That having been said, having it in the divorce decree makes it actionable if something does occur and someone wants to press the issue, probably the mother. A canonical example of this is “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” The Military can’t compel someone to admit their homosexuality, but if they do, it becomes actionable. The reality is that homosexuals serve in the military and they don’t stop being homosexual because of their enlistment, but if they keep their mouths shut, no action can be taken against them because of it. I would hope to see this order overturned because the state has no business micromanaging lives at that level. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/54 "2011-08-26T22:22:32Z")
Ugh. I also hope it’s not OK for the mom to have boyfriends around the kid alone and that the judge has made similar rulings about straight women. Actually, I object to all of those, but you get what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![fifty-six](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@fifty-six](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fifty-six)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/55 "2011-08-26T23:33:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **fifty-six** appears to be a doofus. QTF Hey, I did not read the linked article. But the OP says EXCLUDES. That is were my questions stemmed. I did not consider that the linked article would read differently. The ruling is still homophobic and the judge should be kicked reguardless of the word no longer in question. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/56 "2011-08-27T02:23:10Z")
On this we can all agree. Off topic: stop capitalizing “ex” and “husband”, people. They’re not proper nouns, unless perhaps you were married to someone named Ex. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/57 "2011-08-27T03:21:06Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > A [Houston Chronicle story reports](http://blog.chron.com/partisangridlock/2011/08/houston-judge-limits-rights-of-gay-father/#.TlJ4OmM1Cdk.facebook) 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. The link you provided is _ **not** _ a “Houston Chronicle story”, it is a blog from Geoff Berg. [http://blog.chron.com/partisangridlock/author/geoffberg/](http://blog.chron.com/partisangridlock/author/geoffberg/) ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/58 "2011-08-27T20:36:23Z")
I think some people have focused wrongly on the side-show of this case. From what I can see, the judge intended to stop the father leaving the child with other men, when he was not present, while he was supposed to be taking care of the child. The doctor/pastor/teacher example seems to be an extension created by the blogwriter - it is a logical extension, but it probably wasn’t the purpose of the order, and I would imagine that if they sought clarification of the order then most of the problems could be rectified. The writer has slightly misconstrued the words of the order IMO. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/59 "2011-08-27T21:28:15Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > I think some people have focused wrongly on the side-show of this case. > From what I can see, the judge intended to stop the father leaving the child with other men, when he was not present, while he was supposed to be taking care of the child. No, the intent appears to be to stop the father from leaving the child with the child’s step-father. If it were not, the order would have been except for men related by “blood, adoption, or marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072/60 "2011-08-29T20:11:31Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > The doctor/pastor/teacher example seems to be an extension created by the blogwriter - it is a logical extension, but it probably wasn’t the purpose of the order Of course it wasn’t the purpose of the order, you moron–that’s the point. The judge made this ridiculous order to assuage his own homophobia, and in the process swept up any and every male adult who isn’t related to the kid, because he knew it would be flat-out illegal to just say, “Daddy can’t leave the kid alone with the other fag he’s ‘married’ to.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-men-alone-with-that-child-says-texas-judge/594072.md?page=4)