Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Ga. man fights gay restriction in child visitation ruling
02.20.2009 12:14pm EST
(Atlanta, Georgia) The Georgia Supreme Court is being asked to void restrictions placed on a Fayette man that he not be allowed to have a same-sex partner or gay friends in his home while has weekly visitation with his children.
The provision was part of a divorce ruling involving Eric Mongerson and his former wife, Sandy Ehlers.In granting the divorce and establishing visitation rights to Mongerson’s three minor children in 2007, Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards ruled that neither parent could have “overnight company with a member of the opposite sex, or with any person deemed to be a paramour, unrelated by blood or marriage, in the presence of a child.”
But Edwards did not stop there.
“Additionally, defendant is prohibited from exposing the children to his homosexual partners and friends,” he wrote in his ruling.
In appealing to the state Supreme Court Mongerson’s attorneys assert that “[t]here was no evidence presented that and the court made no finding that exposing the parties’ children to any of Appellant’s homosexual friends would adversely affect the best interests of the children. Therefore, such a prohibition on appellant’s homosexual friends is an abuse of discretion.”
But lawyers for Ehlers dispute the argument claiming that the oldest daughter had testified she had “found one of my dad’s magazines that had nude men in it doing things to each other.”
Her attorneys also argue that the discovery their father is gay “has been ‘emotionally difficult’ for the children who continue to go to counseling as a result.”
A friend of the court brief submitted this week by Lambda Legal says the prohibition should be struck down.
“The Court should do what it always does in divorce cases with custody issues, which is to focus on the needs of the children — placing a blanket ban on “exposure” to gay people hardly helps a gay dad maintain his relationship with his children,” said Beth Littrell, a Lambda Staff Attorney in Atlanta.
“What the ban does do is perpetuate prejudice and stigma against an entire group of people based solely on their sexual orientation, and that is just plain wrong.”
The brief went on to say that the ” order hinders Mongerson’s ability to maintain his relationship with his children as he is under a court order to treat other gay people as pariahs based solely on their sexual orientation.”
Same kind of order was handed down by a judge in Williamson County TN a few years ago. Father was sentenced to jail for allowing his boyfriend to be in presence of the kids. I’m inclined to put this down to the mother trying to get a dig in on the father. The order may have come from the judge, but it would be no act of mind-reading to anticipate such a gesture by a judge. Instead of acting to protect her children from an adult conflict, the mother seems to have indicated that she’s more interested in using the courts to mess with her ex. It was the mother arguing from a position of strength, and she showed her true colors by not using her power to work out terms with her ex-husband. The parent who undermines their ex is the parent who should think twice about how the kids will turn out. Maybe they’ll be forgiving–but maybe they’ll do unto one or both parents as the self-centered parent did to them.
As for the judge, I’d be surprised to see such a gesture in Fulton or DeKalb counties, but in the rest of Georgia I’d expect it. I wasn’t surprised when I read of it in Williamson TN, but I would be surprised in Davidson (Nashville), immediately to the north. City judges usually don’t waste court time or resources with this kind of moralistic micromanagement.
Restricting who someone can be friends with seems a violation of the 14th Amendment, but, then again, in the U.S., gay people have no constitutional protections.
The judges statement should be enough for any reasonable court to nullify any finding(s). I am not going to get into the gay/het issue as it was clearly part of the judges prejudice.
Following their logic if playgirl (or playboy) was found in the wife’s home the issue would not have been raised. EVEN *IF* the wife was found to a lesbian and the straight father would not have dared to raise this issue. It is pure gay prejudice that is fueling this.
One sometimes wonders if the Court has ever heard of the First Amendment.
Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Assembly, are foundational rights under our Constitution.
I hope this guy gets this restriction lifted. This is so stupid and homophobic. Anyway it really makes me glad that somehow by the grace of God I had the wisdom to not try and change myself by getting married to a woman. Somehow I knew it would not be fair to her or especially to the kids. Today I have a really great husband of 14 years and we adopted a son 9 years ago. So I have had love and the experiance of being a parent. My teenager is a real handful but I love my family.
Tom in Long Beach
This ruling over stepped the boundaries by including “gay friends.” Otherwise it would have been fair, since both parents were instructed not to have “lovers” around the children.
I really think that the emotional distress, allegedly suffered because of their father’s sexual orientation, is over-the-top posturing. Most kids old enough to understand sexuality don’t want think about their parent’s sex life; and those who are interested, are too young to know what it is they’re interested in.
It saddens me to see how many judges are still ignorant regarding the facts about homosexuality and make rulings based on stereotypical prejudices. I see two basic misconceptions here which have influenced the judges ruling. 1) That all homosexual men are child molesters and predators and therefore should be distanced from the visiting children. 2) The Gay Vampire Theory, wherein the gay person seduces another person and then automatically becomes gay themselves and then goes on to seduce others who also become gay. The child finding dad’s porn was a stupid oversight on his part, but would a judge have taken that fact into account if a child had discovered his straight dad’s porn? I think not. I would love to see Judges go through some kind of sensitivity training and education training by psychiatrists. They need to throw out all this medieval believes about homosexuality.
Been there done that. I was divorced 13 years ago. In the state of MS, divorcing because of being gay is considered “Cruel and inhumane treatment.” If not for my ex-wife eventually backing down, I would have been in for the same type of treatment by the courts. The key for any dad going through this is “love”. Love them, love them some more and never stop telling them that you love them. Today, I have great relationships with both sons and my grandchildren and the gay issue never arises. They love my partner as if he was the only person in their lives. I agree with him for fighting for his rights, and my kids over the years have met some wonderful friends of mine, opening their own eyes to the rest of the world not so bigoted as most of Mississippi.
OMG.. I am so grateful that is something that I don’t have to go thru with my ex wife. I had the experience of one of my children finding something on my computer that they shouldn’t have seen and all my ex-wife did was ask to be a little more discreet with them. My kids have been around gay people all their lives and although they have not been “officially” told, they know… and yet not one of them has expressed interest in the same sex, so my money is better spent other than therapy
It’s all because the wife claims that the children are harmed by her husnand’s (and thus the kid’s father’s homosexuality).
This why straight marriage is useless to most gay men, so much blame etc from a clearly homophobic wife who is putting her own spin (via the mouth of her lawyers who are it seems doing some of the speaking for her)on why the kids are being counseled.
The kids are simply in turmoil over this divorce + all the nonsense spouted by there mother. Who is clearly creating a hostile and adversarial environment to keep her gay husbdand at bay.
Yes the kids are being well taught prejudice by the mother, putting the kids through turmoil and stress sufficient to cause the family to fall apart and not be a family anymore.
Anyone who lives with such a hostile and toxic mother would one day need couseling TO DEAL WITH THE TRAUMA CAUSED BY HER.
Looks irretrievable to me, if Dad can’t be the gay man he was meant to be, can’t date a lovely man, get on with his life, he may have either forget about his kids, or else pusue legal ramedies as far as he can to force visitation while he leads a normal life with his “real family” made up of those friends support him the most.
It ALL goes back once again as to why gay men and gay women need to IN REAL MARRIAGES WITH EACH OTHER, NOT IN MAKE-BELIEVE MARRIAGES WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX THAT SO OFTEN EVENTUALLY END UP WITH AN UNWANTED OPPOSITE SEX MARRIAGE PARTNER WITH KIDS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS TURMOIL AND THIS DECEIT.
hmmm…wonder if the kids are experiencing emotional distress because their mother has taught them to hate gays..or perhaps their pastor.
Children don’t just become prejudiced, they are taught it.
The more time they spend with their dad away from their apparantly ignorant mother is probably much better for them.
Shame on the father for not hiding his porn better, but I find that a funny comment as he wasn’t banned from having porn so that incident is irrelevant.
Sounds like the way the stimulus was passed…fear, hyperbole and ignorance. This is in GA, right? No surprise.
Maybe they should get the governor to hold another prayer session, this time for straightness instead of rain, as before.
Why is it every time a kid has to deal with somthing that involves homosexuality they are usually FORCED to take theropy? When I came out my parents made me go get theropy, and it was a wast of their money.