# What restrictions can be placed in sep. agreement for x-wife



## jaybird (Sep 16, 2009)

I recently was told by someone that I can place 'restrictions' in a separation agreement that will help to control what my soon-t-be X-wife can do. We have two children under the age of 14. I work a stable 9-5, and she does IT support is is all over the place at odd hours of the day and night. I am more organized and plan, while she is 'last minute' and 'spur of the moment'.

What are some of the common types of restrictions that a father can place in a separation agreement ?

I was told or read some where that one person included a clause that restricted his x-wife from have a 'live in partner' for X years.

Jay


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

Like I said in the other thread.. I highly doubt that this restriction is feasible.. it would be done out of revenge or pure bitterness... and I sincerely hope that no judge is stupid enough to allow such restriction.. this is simply a control issue... 

You need to let it go.. your kids will be fine.. unless she's a bad mother.. n gosh... I just can't believe some people sometimes..


----------



## pairofduces (Dec 28, 2008)

I don't think he is trying to be controlling or vindictive. He is looking out for the health and wellbeing of his children. I think it's reasonable to ask what sorts of 'restrictions' (I hate that word) he can request when putting an agreement together. Once you are no longer operating as a family it is normal to want to insure that parenting remains a joint thing and that both parents' wishes are respected.


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

Yeah right.. I'm sure it's for the sake of the kids.. come on.. give me a break.. 

He knows her.. she's probably a good mother.. he,s just pissed at her.. and wants to have a restriction on her..

Like I said, I never heard of anything like that.. it would be ridiculous.. 

And yes.. IT IS about control...

Totally about control... a 'disguised' control 'for the sake of the kids'..


----------



## Corpuswife (Apr 24, 2009)

Often prior to divorce or separation one side becomes irrational. Just read the board!

I like the idea of no livins...after all you are still married. 

Also...visitation agreement for the children.

Maybe some reservations on major puchases. Must be authorized by both parties.


----------



## jaybird (Sep 16, 2009)

Lizzie, unfortunately you have it all wrong on this one. This isn't about being vindictive, far from. The point is, there are 'restrictions' or rules that each must abide by. The obvious one is you can't simply up and take the children to another state or province, period. If you are looking at 'shared parenting' you can't simply move the children to another school or move in with you new partner without consent.

So there are 'rules', the point of the question is to hear about some of the 'other' rules that may be put in place.

My own situation is that my wife works 'odd' hours and over the last 4 years the children have relied on me to deal with the pickup/drop off to school and extra-curricular activities for example.I can't see the current setup changing, so I fully expect that on weeks when I don't have the children I will be called upon frequently to be the taxi. Not that I wouldn't but the point is she isn't going to make the effort or can't because of her job. Hardly seems right ... As a male, like it or not, the chance of full custody is slim at best so I need to establish fair rules so that I am not taken advantaged off.

So what kinds of other rules does one need to thing about ?

Jay


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

Of course.. there are rules concerning the KIDS.. this is not really about the kids.. it's about her.. 

We do have rules too when it comes to the kids.. I'm not stupid.. shared custody is about two parents 'sharing' the kids.. on an 'as much as possible' equal basis.

It cannot be 50/50 ALL the time.. sometimes one does more than the other.. and so on.. 

But you're trying to prevent her from having a live-in 'lover'... this is not fair to her.. why can't she re-do her life.. just like you... 

What's the difference if she has a lover who spends MOST of his time over to her place.. but do not 'move in' with her 'officially'.. are you going to 'watch' her 24/7 to see if he sleeps there 7 days a week... this is ridiculous.. 

Really... get a grip..


----------



## Corpuswife (Apr 24, 2009)

Jay: You are right on! For kids and sake of both of you restrictions need to be place during the time of separation.

She can wait for the ole' live in until a divorce occurs. Risking the fact that she MAY be irrational and turn to a rebound relationship is one thing. But to have some stranger live in with your children is dangerous. Not sure if this is the case, but it is a protection clause against some stranger sleeping in the house for days on end with your kids present.

You don't have control of what she does or who she is with. However, whatever control that you do have to protect your children you do that! That is what parenting is about.

I hope your wife is sane and a good parent. That is ideal. However, during these times some good parents act out.


----------



## jaybird (Sep 16, 2009)

Lizzie, I think you made your point but totally missed my own. We can agree to disagree here ... the only interest I have is whether or not reasonable rules can be established in the interest of MY children.

Quite frankly, you are attempting to read too deeply between the lines in order to justify your position that this is about control or preventing her from having a life with her lover or partner. 

Obviously, rules can't be put in place to 'control' her desires, 'wants', needs or who she spends time with, etc. etc. and to be blunt, nor to I care about her wishes. For me, I am only interested in ensuring that when she has the children ... they are not neglected or put in uncomfortable positions during the transition. 

You know nothing of my wife's behavior and aren't qualified to defend her as being a good or bad mother, I do, and am very aware of how she functions.

As stated, you have your viewpoint which I disagree with and I have mine. Let us move along ... as you stated .... get a grip!

Jay


----------



## dobo (Jun 30, 2009)

Remember where Lizzie is coming from - she is someone who will have sex with married men so how could she possibly understand this situation from the point of view of being a parent and wanting to raise children to see that when you are married there are certain things that are OFF LIMITS?


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

dobo said:


> Remember where Lizzie is coming from - she is someone who will have sex with married men so how could she possibly understand this situation from the point of view of being a parent and wanting to raise children to see that when you are married there are certain things that are OFF LIMITS?



Pardon my French sir.. or ma'am.. but I am a mother.. I know what I'm talking about. 

sorry to disappoint you.. but I'm a very good mother..


----------



## dobo (Jun 30, 2009)

You may be a mother but your morals are questionable at best. I wonder why you are here to discuss marriage in the first place when you clearly place no value and have no respect for someone elses.

I would also suggest that a mother who sets an example such as the one you set for your children is NOT a good mother.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

The example you chose is clearly about control of the spouse:


> that one person included a clause that restricted his x-wife from have a 'live in partner' for X years


And no one can control their spouse after divorce, period. You could have an agreement where money is no longer owed if a spouse is remarried--it's still about control, but you cannot legally bind someone NOT to marry/live with another.

Now, having said that, if what you mean is, "a restriction that prohibits a spouse from having overnight guests of the opposite sex in the home when the children are there," that is a different issue. Furthermore, you SAY you are interested in protecting yourself from being taken advantage of, yet you want to protect your kids. Well, which is it? Which is more important? If you don't want relative strangers picking up the kids on "her" nights b/c she is working, then you offer to step up to the plate. You cannot tell her "you must take care of them, but oh, you must do it MY way." If you care about the kids, then you pick 'em up, and it has nothing to do with her "taking advantage of you." She could hire someone, have a relative do it, have a new boyfriend do it, very likely. You don't like these options for your kids? Then do it yourself. THAT is "being about the kids." 

FYI: My husband cannot pick up our kids on time on "his" nights. The after school care is really expensive, too. I offered to pick up the kids on HIS nights because--wow, here's a thought--I love seeing them. I *could* let him pay for after school care, but I would rather spend an hour or so with my kids. 

So quit giving Lizzie a hard time. She saw right through your example. It wasn't about the kids; none of what you wrote was. It was about YOU. When you can finally see that, you will be on your way to making better choices for your kids. I am sympathetic to your loss, but too often people claim it's about the the kids when it isn't, and this thread is a perfect example.


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

dobo said:


> You may be a mother but your morals are questionable at best. I wonder why you are here to discuss marriage in the first place when you clearly place no value and have no respect for someone elses.
> 
> I would also suggest that a mother who sets an example such as the one you set for your children is NOT a good mother.



Wow.. are you serious???

Do you tell everything to your children.. I don't... 

My sexuality and my lifestyle belong to me.. my children are adults.. so I don't owe them any explanations.. I've been there and still am for them if they need me.. 

I have respect for those who command respect.. I have no respect for 'doormats' and I hate 'pity' parties.. 

Sometimes, people need to know the truth.. even if it's hard... I am certainly not a sugarcoater.. I say it like I see it.. 

:scratchhead:


----------



## Lizzie60 (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you Sister.. 

_So quit giving Lizzie a hard time. She saw right through your example. It wasn't about the kids; none of what you wrote was. It was about YOU. When you can finally see that, you will be on your way to making better choices for your kids. I am sympathetic to your loss, but too often people claim it's about the the kids when it isn't, and this thread is a perfect example. _

Well said..


----------



## pairofduces (Dec 28, 2008)

No one is disappointed. Who is calling YOU a bad mother?

Men and Women think differently about many things. You might think something is controlling and we might think it is simply the natural part of an agreement. BTW rules should work both ways.


----------



## dobo (Jun 30, 2009)

But you have sex with pity parties for money no less, Lizzie. 

As far as what you don't share with your children, if you're so darned proud of how you behave, why not share it? Are you afraid they wouldn't approve? Afraid they'd think Mom wasn't such a swell gal afterall? Talk about sugar coating truths, you sugar coat lies.


----------



## voivod (Aug 7, 2008)

Lizzie60 said:


> Sometimes, people need to know the truth.. even if it's hard... I am certainly not a sugarcoater.. I say it like I see it..
> 
> :scratchhead:


understand this then...you are not THE font of "truth." from time to time you will get a dose of someone elses truth here...not sugarcoated...accepted?


----------



## jaybird (Sep 16, 2009)

Corpus I think you have it correct. Sister, you had it correct regarding the rule or restriction ask quoted .... 

"Now, having said that, if what you mean is, "a restriction that prohibits a spouse from having overnight guests of the opposite sex in the home when the children are there," that is a different issue.". 

This is exactly what I was referring to ... It sounds reasonable as a rule at least in the transition period or at least something that she should be aware of.

Where I think Lizzie and Sister seem to go awry is attempting to "judge" other peoples motives or attempt to "unearth" some perceived hidden agenda. I now nothing of either Lizzie or Sister, so I would not be in a position to judge. Other's on the forum may know them and in a better position to provide their opinion. 

So, I will still seek to hear from others what reasonable ground rules should be considered and move the discussion along.

Jay


----------



## dobo (Jun 30, 2009)

I've discussed this in another thread -- my ex-husband put a clause on spousal that if I cohabited or remarried, spousal would end. So he tied remarriage/cohabitation to an economic disincentive. I agreed to it because I thought it was reasonable when I thought about it. 

How much that was about control or about not wanting to help foot the bills for someone else or about what he didn't want to see happen in our children's life I don't know. But I do know that it was a reasonable thing to do. And I did end up remarrying prior to the end of spousal. He was actually snippy about it, when you would think he'd be happy saving all that $$ (wasn't an insignificant amount per month.) But he was still hurt. 

Luckily, he likes my new husband (and vice-versa) and things are OK. But perhaps part of that was his asking for something reasonable in the divorce agreement and not having me blow a gasket about his trying to control me after we're divorced.


----------

