Legal Question in Family Law in California
I am involved in a divorce. My wife has struck up a relationship with a married man who is a registered sex offender for 288(a) PC, Lewd Conduct with Child Under the Age of 14. During the child custody agreement she agreed to the stipulation that the registrant has to stay away from the kids (two daughters age 7 and 12). She now wants to go back to court to remove that order. Do I have any standing in keeping him away or was my only shot her original agreement.
2 Answers from Attorneys
The courts are pretty protective of children, and she has two strikes against her changing anything. I would stress that removal of the restriction is not in the children's best interest due to the fact he is a registered sex offender AND he is married to someone else and is not likely to be a stable figure in the lives of the children. Being a mistress could cause alot of drama the kids don't need to be a part of, and the kids have already lost the sense of family unity to a certain degree. MOST psychologists believe that the children should only be introduced to significant others if there is a good chance of a stable relationship. The kids don't need to suffer any more loss of stability or a relationship than they already have. They certainly don't need to be exposed to the risk of being the victim of a sex offender. If you don't have primary custody, I would ask for a change of custody if she pushes the issue, because this seems to show a serious lack of concern to protect your children. If you find out she is allowing the kids around him anyway, I would contact the authorities and ask that she be granted only supervised visitation.
If that is currently a court order, I believe that the court will not change that order, and you should definitely have an attorney representing you if she tries to do so. I can't imagine any grounds that she could come up with to change that order. In fact, if you learn that she is bringing this person around the children despite the court order, you will have grounds to restrict her visitation to monitored visitation at the very least.