THE Family Court has ruled that married men who regularly visit prostitutes -- or massage parlours that offer a "happy ending" -- are not necessarily bad parents and should not be refused access to their children.
The court made the ruling after a wife, known in court files as Mrs Digg, claimed her husband's "dark and seedy habit" of paying for what he called "sexual relief" and she described as "prostitution" should disqualify him as the primary carer of their three children, particularly their two daughters.
She said his use of such services suggested a poor attitude to women and a dishonest character.
The court heard the marriage suffered a "catastrophic blow" in 2007 when Mrs Digg discovered her husband had been visiting massage parlours for eight years.
Mr Digg admitted he "regularly had massages . . . the end result of which was sexual relief" but denied having intercourse. He said he kept the activities secret from his wife but she found out when she checked his phone bill and found numbers for sexual services.
Mrs Digg left the marriage after counselling failed, taking the children with her. They were ordered back to the marital home by the courts.
Mrs Digg, who has since found a new partner, said she took the children because she was seeking a "fresh start" in a town more than five hours away, where the father's "addiction to prostitutes" was not known.
But the father argued it was better for the children to stay in the town where they had lived all their lives, and the court agreed.
没有评论:
发表评论