A Georgia father has been forbidden by a divorce court from having any “homosexual partners or friends” around when his children are present.
Eric Mongerson and his ex-wife, Sandy Ehlers were prohibited by the court from having any one of the opposite sex, or deemed a paramour, and who was not a blood relative, stay overnight in the presence of the children.
But the Judge Christopher Edwards of the Fayette County Superior Court imposed additional restrictions on Mongerson, ordering, “Additionally, defendant is prohibited from exposing the children to his homosexual partners and friends” during the children’s once-per-week visits.
How great is this? Finally, a court “gets it.” And of course, the Father (if you could even call him that. I think that a Father is someone who always does whats in the best interests of their children, so technically this dude doesn’t always qualify), anyway, he appealed the court’s decision. Apparently he doesn’t want to be prohibited from having his homosexual liaisons in front of his children.
His filing argues that, “There 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.
Oh really? So has he not read any of the studies, or payed attention to his children at all? He needs to read these posts here and here, and get himself straightened out. These kids do need a father, but not one who is going to parade his male “paramours” in front of them.
The lawyer for Mongerson’s ex-wife, Lance McMillian, cited as evidence to that effect the testimony by Mongerson’s daughter, who told the court that she had discovered “one of my dad’s magazines that had nude men in it doing things to each other.”
McMillian’s brief further asserted that Mongerson had been unfaithful, and that his children had suffered as their parents’ marriage ended. The presence of gay friends during time with their father, the brief claimed, might result in “potentially damaging effects on the healing process” of Mongerson’s children because they would be “reminded of the painful issue of the appellant’s infidelity, new lifestyle and keeping of pornography in the home.”
But he thinks that his behavior doesn’t adversely affect his children. What is wrong with some people? Of course his children are and will continue to be negatively affected. Thankfully the court also gave him very little visitation time. I guess it’s a toss up between children needing their father, and the father being a perverted self-centered pron addict. I agree with the court. It’s in the children’s best interested to have very little time with a parent who would parade such filth in front of them. Mongerson’s visits are limited to,
four hours once a week with his youngest children, plus one-week visits during the summer and a day with each child just before or after a birthday.
There had to be something drastically wrong for a father to get awarded so little time with his children. I am impressed with Judge Edwards and his effort to protect these kids. He obviously understands the negative effect that homosexuality has on people and how exposure to such things affects children.
Source: edgeboston.com (article found via google news, but website for gay propaganda).