WWYD - Boyfriend's separated wife is being creepy

[luvsJack]

I think the 'not seeing someone else' is pretty much a general advice irrespective of state. The judge may not care depending on a particular judge, but it could impact the willingness for the other party to play fair, to end the process in a reasonable time frame, the behaviors of all involved (including the new person) could impact decisions made, etc.

I think attorneys just give that advice because it can add another layer into something that can already be a complicated things (both legally and emotionally). Obviously people date while still legally married and nothing, to their knowedge, of ill will comes about it. But it's still probably just a general advice most attorneys would give out.

And as you can see by your brother-in-law the new person in his life impacted how his ex handled things. Judge still asked clarifying questions and even if nothing was amiss, the ex did bring it up (and for good reason in all honesty as that's a valid question with respects to minor children involved).

No. What I am saying is its NOT general advise everywhere. Divorces can get drug out for years, especially when kids are involved. To tell someone not to get involved for that amount of time is not reasonable.

The judge doesn't care because it has no bearing on the case. Bil's lawyer told him that in the beginning. Unless the child was being neglected, abused or the gf was some kind of drug dealer or wanted felon, it was ok.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No. What I am saying is its NOT general advise everywhere. Divorces can get drug out for years, especially when kids are involved. To tell someone not to get involved for that amount of time is not reasonable.

The judge doesn't care because it has no bearing on the case. Bil's lawyer told him that in the beginning. Unless the child was being neglected, abused or the gf was some kind of drug dealer or wanted felon, it was ok.

Pretty sure a good amount of people have mentioned in this thread same thing I have (and I quoted exactly what my father-in-law's attorney has for their advice to give an example and in that attorney's word it can "seriously jeopardize your case by even “seeing” another man or woman", though yes of course he's but one attorney; I'm not scouring the internet for a myriad of other examples). Let's just say maybe it's the famous DIS-speak for "it must be regional" lol.

All attorneys utilizing said advice are just giving cautionary advice. There's always risks involved and it may just be a "why add this into the fray" kinda thinking. In respects to it not being reasonable because of the time, well unfortunately some spouses during the process of divorce actually opt to delay things because the other person is actively dating someone else and for the OP that may very well be part of it (who really knows). Right or wrong. That's why I mentioned earlier on it can impact how 'fairly' someone may be. In the case of the OP they met 6 months after he moved out. Clearly, by a good amount of posters we know 6 months may not be anywhere near enough time for a divorce to be finalized. Plus we don't even know when the husband even officially filed or divorce (I'm assuming he was the one to file).

Back to your family by your own words it would have mattered if the girlfriend did this or that (referencing your drug dealer, wanted felon, if the kid was neglected, abused, etc). Because it was stated that she wasn't then it didn't matter..it was still something brought to the table and discussed regarding the other party involved. Obviously it actually would have bearing on the case if something was amiss with the girlfriend.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Whether you think that it is okay and good to become involved because your divorce can take a long time... that is opinion. I doubt any State Law would dictate.

Whether it is a good thing, as the other person, to become involved with somebody who is going thru this type of divorce and is, still, legally married. that is a whole different and important issue!!!!

The bottom line is, If somebody takes that risk, they can easily find themselves 1 - 2 - 3 years later, in the OP's situation, dealing with that wife/husband of the person they are with. That is my focus here. Not the person who is going thru a lengthy divorce.

And, after this amount of time, and the wife doing the things that she is doing. My advice is STILL, you might want to get out of that situation. That seems to be the way to protect yourself and solve the problem. I have to say, I am still wondering why the man here is still in a place where his wife has access to his financial records. That access is not mandatory. Anyone, married or not, can have their own personal and private financial accounts. and, this kind of thing would probably be a part of a legal separation, right?

Personally, I would never knowingly find myself there.
I would never expect a man to be fully committed to me if he has a wife.
Some people do not put such weight on that commitment. But, I do. Maybe that is just me. But, commitment or not, the drama and risks that the OP seems to find herself in would still be enough for me to walk the other way from a married man.

 

[luvsJack]

Pretty sure a good amount of people have mentioned in this thread same thing I have (and I quoted exactly what my father-in-law's attorney has for their advice to give an example and in that attorney's word it can "seriously jeopardize your case by even “seeing” another man or woman", though yes of course he's but one attorney; I'm not scouring the internet for a myriad of other examples). Let's just say maybe it's the famous DIS-speak for "it must be regional" lol.

All attorneys utilizing said advice are just giving cautionary advice. There's always risks involved and it may just be a "why add this into the fray" kinda thinking. In respects to it not being reasonable because of the time, well unfortunately some spouses during the process of divorce actually opt to delay things because the other person is actively dating someone else and for the OP that may very well be part of it (who really knows). Right or wrong. That's why I mentioned earlier on it can impact how 'fairly' someone may be. In the case of the OP they met 6 months after he moved out. Clearly, by a good amount of posters we know 6 months may not be anywhere near enough time for a divorce to be finalized. Plus we don't even know when the husband even officially filed or divorce (I'm assuming he was the one to file).

Back to your family by your own words it would have mattered if the girlfriend did this or that (referencing your drug dealer, wanted felon, if the kid was neglected, abused, etc). Because it was stated that she wasn't then it didn't matter..it was still something brought to the table and discussed regarding the other party involved. Obviously it actually would have bearing on the case if something was amiss with the girlfriend.

You do realize that if someone is dating a child abuser, a drug dealer/user or a wanted felon there is a pretty good chance they have questionable character themselves? Your every day great Dad isn't likely to date Debbie Druggie from downtown. He just isn't. And a parent of any marital status should be careful who is allowed in their child’s life. That isn’t legal advise, that is common sense.

Again, here there is no alimony. Marital assets are either decided on or split equally. So in the cases of the two separated people on this thread there would be no reason to not see anyone new while waiting for the divorce.

It wasn’t “discussed”, she brought it up and the judge basically said it was none of her business unless there was something detrimental for the child. That would be the case in ANY custody battle even if it went on years after the divorce. And if she had been dumb enough to answer “yes” she would have been asked for proof. His point was that the hearing they were having was about the child and custody and to stop bringing up nonsense.

When my best friend divorced, both her and her ex were told the same thing. The judge told them both to hush and he didn’t want to hear all their dramatic accusations. And then he made his decision.

I am not planning to look up numerous cases either. But I know what I was told when I divorced and almost every other divorced person I know was told. And it’s not “regional” it’s based on the divorce laws of the state.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You do realize that if someone is dating a child abuser, a drug dealer/user or a wanted felon there is a pretty good chance they have questionable character themselves? Your every day great Dad isn't likely to date Debbie Druggie from downtown. He just isn't. And a parent of any marital status should be careful who is allowed in their child’s life. That isn’t legal advise, that is common sense.

Again, here there is no alimony. Marital assets are either decided on or split equally. So in the cases of the two separated people on this thread there would be no reason to not see anyone new while waiting for the divorce.

It wasn’t “discussed”, she brought it up and the judge basically said it was none of her business unless there was something detrimental for the child. That would be the case in ANY custody battle even if it went on years after the divorce. And if she had been dumb enough to answer “yes” she would have been asked for proof. His point was that the hearing they were having was about the child and custody and to stop bringing up nonsense.

When my best friend divorced, both her and her ex were told the same thing. The judge told them both to hush and he didn’t want to hear all their dramatic accusations. And then he made his decision.

I am not planning to look up numerous cases either. But I know what I was told when I divorced and almost every other divorced person I know was told. And it’s not “regional” it’s based on the divorce laws of the state.

Love can be blind, love can be blind. Don't take that to mean anything on a personal level towards your family. Just saying you don't have to be engaged in illegal activies (or legal depending on the state) for things to be relevant or merely brought up in the event your partner is undergoing a divorce; it could be a messy divorce on the other person's side, could be an ex, could be a fairly trivial past transgression, could be lots of things.

And your subsequent comment just shows when people opt to use that the person is actively with someone else-in other words it's a risk hence the advice attorneys make. A risk that obviously people are willing to take. The OP themselves is opting to be with the guy even with all this going on so ya know people are willing to do, push aside, etc all sorts of things for the sake of a relationship. The DIS has many threads to showcase that

My DIS-speak comment about regional wasn't actually about physical regional boundaries

 

[disneychrista]

And a parent of any marital status should be careful who is allowed in their child’s life. That isn’t legal advise, that is common sense.

Unfortunately, that isn't always a guarantee that the person they bring into the child's life is a good person. I have the unfortunate experience of letting someone who on the surface was a great guy and was heading toward being a super star in his field of study into my & my childrens. Turns out he had a dark secret that SHOCKED everyone he knew.

But I do agree that a good parent isn't going to ignore "bad behavior" of a partner just so they aren't alone.

 

[luvsJack]

Love can be blind, love can be blind. Don't take that to mean anything on a personal level towards your family. Just saying you don't have to be engaged in illegal activies (or legal depending on the state) for things to be relevant or merely brought up in the event your partner is undergoing a divorce; it could be a messy divorce on the other person's side, could be an ex, could be a fairly trivial past transgression, could be lots of things.

And your subsequent comment just shows when people opt to use that the person is actively with someone else-in other words it's a risk hence the advice attorneys make. A risk that obviously people are willing to take. The OP themselves is opting to be with the guy even with all this going on so ya know people are willing to do, push aside, etc all sorts of things for the sake of a relationship. The DIS has many threads to showcase that

My DIS-speak comment about regional wasn't actually about physical regional boundaries

Again, it’s not advise given here because it’s not necessary in cases like the two posters here. Since the other party can’t get more money or any financial gain from it, there is no reason to.

The attorneys where YOU are may give that advice but HERE they do not. You know, like those differences in insurance and those laws.

When kids are involved it’s more about using common sense. They still don’t say don’t get involved. It can be more sticky, yes. But once again, if the person in question is basically a good person who is good to the kids, it’s not a problem. They aren’t going to take the kids away from a stable home for that one reason.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Again, it’s not advise given here because it’s not necessary in cases like the two posters here. Since the other party can’t get more money or any financial gain from it, there is no reason to.

The attorneys where YOU are may give that advice but HERE they do not. You know, like those differences in insurance and those laws.

When kids are involved it’s more about using common sense. They still don’t say don’t get involved. It can be more sticky, yes. But once again, if the person in question is basically a good person who is good to the kids, it’s not a problem. They aren’t going to take the kids away from a stable home for that one reason.

Clearly it's advice elsewhere as well so please don't act like it's a "my area vs your area" thing. All it takes is a quick search on the internet for a variety of sources that advise dating while in the process of divorce is not advisable. I'm fairly confident I can find attorneys in MS or LA (can't remember which state you live in though I remember NOLA is often mentioned) who recommend not dating or at the very least list reasons why it is risky to do so.

And lordy lol it's not like differences in insurances and those laws not even close not by a long shot.

I already said since nothing was amiss it wasn't an issue. That is different than it not being part of the discussion in the first place, and even asking a question pertaining to the behavior or treatment a new significant other can have towards children means they become part of the discussion no matter how brief that discussion is.

Regardless you do you and the like I'm out of the discussion with you respectfully at this point

 

[Heather07438]

I'm sure PI's are well-versed on what is legal and what isn't.

Whether the PI knows & is doing what is legal isn't the full issue. If it escalates, it's better to know what is possible, what to look out for, and recourse if laws are broken. Would it be legal for the wife to tap her husband's car? What if the wife starts following her around? What if somebody was asking her teen niece strange questions. What if weird complaints starting coming in to her employer?

I wouldn't give a PI 100% the benefit of the doubt either. 49.9% of people are below average in their field, lol. 5 states in the US don't even require PIs to have a license. A lawyer or even another PI (get an above average one, lol) could describe the investigative tactics often used in your locality, explain current technology/stalking/harassment laws, and give advice.

 

[luvsJack]

Clearly it's advice elsewhere as well so please don't act like it's a "my area vs your area" thing. All it takes is a quick search on the internet for a variety of sources that advise dating while in the process of divorce is not advisable. I'm fairly confident I can find attorneys in MS or LA (can't remember which state you live in though I remember NOLA is often mentioned) who recommend not dating or at the very least list reasons why it is risky to do so.

And lordy lol it's not like differences in insurances and those laws not even close not by a long shot.

I already said since nothing was amiss it wasn't an issue. That is different than it not being part of the discussion in the first place, and even asking a question pertaining to the behavior or treatment a new significant other can have towards children means they become part of the discussion no matter how brief that discussion is.

Regardless you do you and the like I'm out of the discussion with you respectfully at this point

Why do you always have such a hard time accepting that just maybe you don’t know the experience of others? You come here and say “I think” or “I assume” and then go on and on like it must be gospel. And then when you can’t convince someone they are wrong, you just want to end the conversation.

If dh and I separated today, we have a house and land (other things too but we will just use those things here). Regardless of the reason for divorce (adultery, abandonment, habitual cruel treatment, whatever) the result of the divorce would be that either one of us would buy the other out for the house and land or we would sell it and divide the money. That’s it. There is no other outcome.

He could go to court and say I was out dancing on table tops with different men every night and the result would be the same. One of us dating someone else would not change it. Because of those laws in this state.

Other states have different laws but HERE, that is the law.

Children involved CAN make it more sticky (that makes 3 times I have said that) but most of the time, it doesn’t change the out come of custody. By the way, judges also make sure whoever is keeping the child while the custodial parent works isn’t mistreating the child. Should we also assume the custodial parent should not work until the divorce is final.

The comparison to the insurance was that just like I don’t have to continue to insure my child who doesn’t live in the home (like the pp), because of different laws, divorces fall under state laws and are not the same over the country. I am honestly unsure what is so hard to understand about that.

And with that, have a very good night.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Other states have different laws but HERE, that is the law.

Unleas the OP is in your state, your laws don't apply.

 

[Disney Doll]

Some thoughts that come to my mind in terms of the different possibilities that may exist in this situation:
1. He is not as separated as he has led you to believe
2. Wife stands to lose a lot in “lifestyle” if they divorce, and she doesn’t want that to happen
3. Wife is crazy
4. Husband is lying

I dont which of the above is true. It may be a combination of all of them.

Here’s what I do know...For me, at my age, this would be too much baggage and drama, frankly. She’s a problem , they have children in common, she's going to remain a problem throughour the years. I’m in my late 50s and would be in no mood to deal with drama.

My advice to you is to get while the getting is good. Since I doubt you’re going to do that my next advice is the same as everyone else’s. Protect yourself. Speak with an attorney or law enforcement.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I'm sure PI's are well-versed on what is legal and what isn't.

Well, since this thread is still going....
Perhaps that is true. But from a couple of people who are in similar lines of work, they do not always seem to follow the letter of the law. They know how to do what they want to do, stretch the limits, and not get caught. I have heard of one guy, by close and credible info, that has has more than one lawsuit and/or investigation against him.

So, I would not make any assumptions based on whether they might be well versed in what might be legal and what isn't.

 

[karen4546]

That is none of your business. You also have it wrong. There are states that recognize legal separation. Also, if both parties are waiting on divorce for a certain reason, but both agree to see other people, there is nothing wrong with that. I will be getting a divorce in 9 months when our only daughter turns 18. We chose to stay together until she turns 18 for several reasons I don't want to mention here. Getting a divorce is only about the legality of the marriage. Former couples can and do decide to live separate lives without letting a piece of paper come between them.

OP posting on a PUBLIC forum and asking about it made it open to everyone to respond. So, I can post a comment if I want. IF you think you are the only one in the world with an opinion and the right to post it then you are sadly mistaken. I am sorry you feel the need to lash out to people. I only spoke the facts, ma'am. HE is MARRIED -period. You need to step back, take a breath and see that this is a public forum. IF you put it out there then people can post and put their comments, opions, or advice. So, you have every right to respond to my post WITH YOUR OPINION. But in this case you are wrong. Her personal busines is no concern of mine. I don't care at all. I said she is dating a MARRIED MAN and I think she should wait until he is Divorced. Thank you for quoting my post, and expressing YOUR opinion with the way you wish to live your life. YOu have every right to do so. Just remember opinions are like other "things" everyone has one.

 

[luvsJack]

Some thoughts that come to my mind in terms of the different possibilities that may exist in this situation:
1. He is not as separated as he has led you to believe
2. Wife stands to lose a lot in “lifestyle” if they divorce, and she doesn’t want that to happen
3. Wife is crazy
4. Husband is lying

I dont which of the above is true. It may be a combination of all of them.

Here’s what I do know...For me, at my age, this would be too much baggage and drama, frankly. She’s a problem , they have children in common, she's going to remain a problem throughour the years. I’m in my late 50s and would be in no mood to deal with drama.

My advice to you is to get while the getting is good. Since I doubt you’re going to do that my next advice is the same as everyone else’s. Protect yourself. Speak with an attorney or law enforcement.

I think your’s is the most logical advise here. It’s about the op’s life and what she wants to put up with more than it is about the law.

If he is lying, then she is in for a world of heartache. If his wife is crazy, she is in for a life of drama.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just remember opinions are like other "things" everyone has one.

At least one opinion

My opinion is, I'm surprised nobody is questioning the OP's reason for creating a new account: that her ex is aware of her former account/username. Why does she not want her ex to know about this current relationship? Did the two overlap? Is he vindictive? Is he an attorney? Did she lie to him about something important?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[palavra]

OP posting on a PUBLIC forum and asking about it made it open to everyone to respond. So, I can post a comment if I want. IF you think you are the only one in the world with an opinion and the right to post it then you are sadly mistaken. I am sorry you feel the need to lash out to people. I only spoke the facts, ma'am. HE is MARRIED -period. You need to step back, take a breath and see that this is a public forum. IF you put it out there then people can post and put their comments, opions, or advice. So, you have every right to respond to my post WITH YOUR OPINION. But in this case you are wrong. Her personal busines is no concern of mine. I don't care at all. I said she is dating a MARRIED MAN and I think she should wait until he is Divorced. Thank you for quoting my post, and expressing YOUR opinion with the way you wish to live your life. YOu have every right to do so. Just remember opinions are like other "things" everyone has one.

She didn't ask about an opinion on dating a man who is separated. She asked about the legality of the PI taking photos. Of course you can give your opinion, but you are opining about her relationship and not the topic of the post. Whether he is legally married or not has no bearing on the legality of the PI's photos.

 

[Poohlove]

Why does she have his credit card statement?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

She didn't ask about an opinion on dating a man who is separated. She asked about the legality of the PI taking photos. Of course you can give your opinion, but you are opining about her relationship and not the topic of the post. Whether he is legally married or not has no bearing on the legality of the PI's photos.

Anything related to the topic is fair game. Threads veer off onto tangents and that has long been accepted here. And the vast majority of posters here understand that. The poster did too as she created a sock puppet to post. You don't own a thread just because you started it. If someone posts that they murdered someone and asks how to get blood stains out of a carpet, we are not limited to just commenting on how to get blood stains out of a carpet. If someone posts that their kid broke his head open because he didn't wear a helmet and asks whether she should take him to the hospital, we are not limited to just answering whether she should take him to the hospital. Similarly, we are not limited to answering just on the legality of the photos.

 

[karen4546]

She didn't ask about an opinion on dating a man who is separated. She asked about the legality of the PI taking photos. Of course you can give your opinion, but you are opining about her relationship and not the topic of the post. Whether he is legally married or not has no bearing on the legality of the PI's photos.

she didn't ask for mine, and i didn't ask for yours. thanks though