Sexting is Considered Being Unfaithful, But Not Grounds for Divorce, Say Legal Experts

New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner's scandalous online dalliances with a string of women – including a porn star he coached to lie – not only places him in hot water with his congressional colleagues, but his history of sexting and phone sex could at least be a contributing factor in a divorce proceeding, if not the primary reason itself, legal experts say.

While most states have a "no-fault" divorce policy -- meaning that a person wanting a divorce does not have to establish fault – legal experts say they’re seeing an increase in social media issues cited in divorce cases.

If Huma Abedin, Weiner's wife and top political aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were to give the sexting lawmaker the heave-ho, legal experts say it would certainly help her case.

Silvana D. Raso, a New Jersey divorce attorney, says that “most courts will recognize this as a form of being unfaithful through an outside romantic relationship, ” adding that, “most people do set forth why they are getting a divorce and can use this as the reason.”

“Even communications on social media that start out ‘innocently’ and never culminate in a physical relationship can have devastating impacts on a marriage as is evident in the Anthony Weiner case,” she said. “I often deal with spouses who are looking to divorce because the other spouse did not ‘cheat' in the traditional sense but was involved in an emotional affair via social media.”

“This is a prime example of an emotional affair -- an emotional connection established with someone they may never meet -- for example online -- without consummating the relationship, can be seen as being unfaithful,” Raso said.

New York attorney Jonna M. Spilbor agrees. "Sexting, while not technically adultery, is cheating. But she says in New York divorce proceedings cheating "hits you in the heart, more than it hits you in the wallet."

"In other words, divorcing your cheating spouse doesn’t get you a bigger piece of the marital pie. The only way a cheating spouse might get the short end of the stick, when splitting up the marital estate, is if he or she cheated so badly that the non-cheating spouse was completely emotionally scarred and couldn’t live a normal life thereafter. And in this day and age, when cheating is as prevalent as breathing, it simply won’t matter much to a judge."

Attorney Stephen Haller, who represented disgraced former New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey in his divorce, has a slightly different take saying, “there’s no specific grounds anywhere that I know of where sexting is listed as grounds for divorce.”

But he does say that text messages and sending racy pictures can be used as evidence constituting irreconcilable differences, but not necessarily adultery.

“Going after other women is irrefutable evidence that constitutes a cause of action -- in this case irreconcilable differences,” Haller said.

Proving adultery is more complicated. Haller says it requires proof that a physical relationship took place at specific times, and that the cheating spouse and the lover were "inclined" to participate in sexual relations.

Haller says Abedin may be less inclined to say the “sexting” was the primary reason for divorce because then the “other woman/women,” legally known as the “co-respondent” would have to be contacted and involved.

Weiner said he repeatedly apologized to Abedin, who was not present at the press conference. He claims that prior to him coming clean publicly, his wife was already aware of some of his indiscretions with other women, although he said that he did not have a physical relationship with any of the women and has never had sex outside his marriage.

Weiner also said he has "no intention of splitting up" with Abedin, but said that she was "not happy" about his actions. 

If his wife does decide to kick him to the curb, the sexting incident could give her powerful evidence for her case.

By Meg Baker, FoxNews.com. Published June 07, 2011

Learning Lessons From A Tragedy

Some of you may have heard about the tragic suicide death of Debie Hackett recently.  Her family drama has been played out in the local media over the past few months regarding the litigation between Ms. Hackett and her former lesbian partner Ms. Ferris. 

Ms. Ferris is the biological parent of the child.  Ms. Hackett sued Ms. Ferris for court-ordered access to the child when their romantic relationship ended.  The trial court initially held that Ms. Hackett had "standing to sue" because she had "actual care, control, and possession" of the child for at least 6 months ending in not less than 90 days before filing the lawsuit.  The Dallas Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.  (See article from The Dallas Voice here.)

But, standing is not the end of the battle, but only the beginning in a suit between a parent and nonparent for court-ordered access to a child.  Once granted standing, the nonparent still has to overcome the constitutionally-protected presumption in favor of a parent's right to make parenting decisions without interference from anyone, including a former romantic partner.  To overcome this high hurdle, the nonparent must prove that the parent's decisions will result in "significant impairment to the child's physical health or emotional development".

In the Hackett v. Ferris case, a jury decided that Ms. Ferris, the parent, was a fit parent, precluding Ms. Hackett from seeking orders related to the child.  I am sure that Ms. Hackett was devastated by this ruling.

Ms. Hackett was, no doubt, bolstered by the judge's grant of standing letting her continue with her case.  But, that just set her up for greater disappointment when she ultimately failed to prevail.

Here's the op-ed piece that I wrote for The Dallas Voice today: 

Learning Lessons From a Tragedy

The death of Debie Hackett was a tragically shocking end to a family drama that has, to some extent, played out in the local Dallas media. Through her experience and even through her tragic death, she has provided an opportunity to educate many who are in similar situations. There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation about her family law case and the litigation that recently ended.

Many people live in families with children that they emotionally consider as “their children”. Knowledge of how the law applies to their relationship with the children in their lives gives power, so even in the midst of this tragedy there is something to be learned.

Texas law has a very specific definition of a “parent”. Texas Family Code defines a parent as:

·   the mother (biological);

·  a man presumed to be the father (because he was married to the mother when the child was born or at the time of conception);

·  a man legally determined to be the father;

·  a man who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction;

·  a man who has acknowledged his paternity under applicable law; or,

·  an adoptive mother or father. 

 

No matter how much love, caring, or emotional bonding exists, if someone does not fall into one of these categories, then they are not a “parent” in the eyes of the Texas courts or legislature.

While a person may feel emotionally connected to a child, the law provides no status for a person who feels-like-a-parent. Even if a person is treated like a parent, or even considered a parent by the child, that person cannot be elevated to the legal status of a parent if she does not meet one of the statutory definitions.

So, you either are a “parent” under the law, entitled to the legal privileges and obligations of a parent, or you are not.

Parents have certain rights that are guaranteed under the United States Constitution as well as the laws of each state. The most fundamental of these rights is the right to make parenting decisions without questioning or interference from those outside the parenting relationship. In other words, as long as the parent makes decisions that are not harmful to the child, the parent has the sanctity to make decisions for the child. Only when a decision can bring harm to a child does the law provide a method of reviewing parental decision making.

The right to make parenting decisions includes the right to decide who the child can be around, spend the night with, and visit. 

This right is fundamental, like the freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and as a result is heavily protected by federal as well as state law, and highly regarded by most of our courts.

So, in Ms. Hackett’s situation, her former partner was the legal parent of the child and had the right to decide whether the child would associate with Ms. Hackett after their break-up. Only by proving that the former partner’s parenting decisions are harmful to the child in a court-at-law would Ms. Hackett have been able to have a court overrule the parent’s decision to exclude Ms. Hackett from the child’s life. The jury trial that Ms. Hackett and her former partner went through in December involved the question of the parent’s fitness in her decision-making. The trial was not about whether the parent versus Ms. Hackett should have custody, what time the child should spend with either of them, who should decide what school the child attends, or even an allocation of child support. 

The jury decided that the parent was a fit parent. That decision precluded Ms. Hackett from seeking any other orders regarding the child, such as the right to visitation over the parent’s objection.

Some believe that the law discriminated against Ms. Hackett because of the nature of their same-sex relationship. However, Ms. Hackett stood in the same position as a heterosexual person that does not meet the legal definition of a parent. The law applies equally to any person that is not a parent seeking to intervene in the parenting relationship.

For example, consider a heterosexual married couple where one member of the couple has a child from a prior relationship. When that couple breaks up, the partner who is not a parent would be in the same situation as Ms. Hackett, left to the parental decision-making of the parent to continue the relationship with the child. Barring proof that the parent is unfit – that her decisions as a parent are harmful to the child – the non-parent would have no right to interfere.

Grandparents often fall into this problem as well. Many grandparents assist in parenting their grandchildren yet cannot seek court ordered access to the grandchild absent proof of parental unfitness.

As a Dallas same-sex custody lawyer, I counsel many non-parents in situations like Ms. Hackett’s.  The most important piece of advice I give them is to adopt their partner’s child while the relationship is good and everyone is on the same page.  Adoption grants the legal status as a parent and the legal rights and constitutional protections that comes with it. This then allows — mandates — a relationship between the adoptive parent and the child after the romantic relationship with the other parent ends.  Without adoption, the law provides no relief from the high hurdle of the parental presumption over which a nonparent must cross to even have the chance of gaining court-ordered conservatorship, possession with and/or access to the child over the legal parent’s objection. 

The current state of Texas law draws no line regarding the gender of the parent or parents a child has. So, a child, by adoption, can have two moms or two dads, provided a judge finds such adoption to be in the child’s best interest. 

Michelle May O’Neil specializes in Texas family law cases and works specifically with gay parents regarding relationship and custody issues. She is the author of two books, All About Texas Law and Kids, published in 2010, and The Basics of Texas Divorce Law, published in 2011. Ms. O’Neil practices law with her firm O’Neil Attorneys in Dallas, Texas.

 

Same Sex Couple Divorce and Parenting Issues

On Thursday, June 17, I will be participating as a panelist in the State Bar of Texas Family Law Update:  Same Sex Couple Divorce/Parenting Issues webcast seminar. 

This two-hour webcast is intended to inform the family law practitioner about recent developments in same-sex family law cases. Dallas and Austin have both recently litigated gay divorces; the 5th and 9th Courts of Appeal have recently issued opinions addressing standing for same-sex parents.

  • WHO is most affected by same-sex family law cases?
  • WHAT can practitioners do with cutting-edge lawyering?
  • WHERE will standing end up, with the split of opinions among appellate courts?
  • WHEN is a parent not a parent?
  • WHY can’t couples legally married in other jurisdictions get divorced in Texas?

Advising same-sex couples can have long-term ramifications for the best interests of children, and need to anticipate upcoming changes in the law, both locally and nationally. Join us to see the latest developments from the attorneys on the front lines. 

This seminar is approved by the Texas Bar for continuing legal education with 2 hours credit. The seminar is sponsored by the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Issues Section of the State Bar of Texas.

I am very excited to be on this panel and plan to learn more than I teach!  Other speakers on the panel include:

1. Ms. Jennifer R. Cochran, Austin
Attorney at Law

Read Jennifer's Blog Here:  The Zealous Advocate

2. Ms. Karen J. Langsley, Dripping Springs
Attorney at Law

3. Ms. Michelle May O'Neil, Dallas
O'Neil Anderson

4. Mr. Peter Schulte, Dallas
Schulte & Apgar

Mr. Schulte has been in the news a great deal lately, representing one member of the gay couple seeking a divorce in Dallas.  That case remains pending on appeal in the Dallas Court of Appeals.

See my prior posts on that case:

  1. Dallas Judge: Ban on Gay Marriage and Divorce Unconstitutional: UPDATE
  2. Dallas Judge Tena Callahan Speaks Publicly For The First Time Since Her Controversial Ruling

Time Magazine has also written on this topic recently, discussing the gay divorce cases pending both in Dallas and in Austin, Can Gay Couples Divorce Where They Can't Marry?

The cost of the webcast seminar is $135. 

Webcast registration is only available online and by using a credit card. Go to TexasBarCLE.com and select 'Webcasts' from the menu. Registrations by mail, fax, or phone will not be accepted.

We encourage early registrations to give you time to verify that your system is webcast-ready. Our technical support lines are usually extremely busy on the day of a webcast, so be please register and test your system a few days ahead of the webcast date.