Bedroom Sharing by Older Teens

[cbg]

At no time did I say that I thought all children had to have separate rooms. And I completely agree that the wealth of the parents is not a factor in deciding the best interests of the children.

But if there is ANY option available other than having opposite sex children in their mid-teens in the same room, including having one of them sleep on the couch or on a cot elsewhere in the house, that's what I would go by. It's not illegal but it's damned inappropriate, and I stand by that.

[cdwjava]

While I agree that it would not be a good idea to have opposite sex teens - particularly non-blood relations - share a room, as pointed out there is no law against it. As such, absent a situation where there were allegations of misconduct/abuse, neither CPS nor the courts would have any grounds to intervene or even render an opinion on the matter. Under the right circumstances, it might be an issue for visitation and/or custody, but, I cannot see that there would be ANY government intervention in such an issue at all. In fact, I know of situations just like this where the question has been raised, but was deemed a legal non-issue.

And where does the inquiry end? Do we limit this to simply opposite sex siblings or step-siblings? Or would we then also have to engage in a query of sexual orientation? Would it be appropriate to have gay teens of the same sex share a room when they could not because they were of the opposite sex? Any LEGAL inquiry would be based upon harm, not a perception of possible impropriety. If we take the argument to the nth degree with regards to bedroom assignments of teens because of possible sexual matters, we might then be looking at rules mandating one room, one child ... and THAT would be nigh on impossible for many households.

I'm not sure where this discussion started since whatever initiated it appears to have been removed. So, I apologize in advance if I am off base in my response here.

[qwaspolk69]

While I agree that it would not be a good idea to have opposite sex teens - particularly non-blood relations - share a room, as pointed out there is no law against it. As such, absent a situation where there were allegations of misconduct/abuse, neither CPS nor the courts would have any grounds to intervene or even render an opinion on the matter. Under the right circumstances, it might be an issue for visitation and/or custody, but, I cannot see that there would be ANY government intervention in such an issue at all. In fact, I know of situations just like this where the question has been raised, but was deemed a legal non-issue.

And where does the inquiry end? Do we limit this to simply opposite sex siblings or step-siblings? Or would we then also have to engage in a query of sexual orientation? Would it be appropriate to have gay teens of the same sex share a room when they could not because they were of the opposite sex? Any LEGAL inquiry would be based upon harm, not a perception of possible impropriety. If we take the argument to the nth degree with regards to bedroom assignments of teens because of possible sexual matters, we might then be looking at rules mandating one room, one child ... and THAT would be nigh on impossible for many households.

I'm not sure where this discussion started since whatever initiated it appears to have been removed. So, I apologize in advance if I am off base in my response here.

This is exactly what I have been saying. I believe it was in the OP.

Where did the original post go to asking about children of opposite genders, size of the house, income, etc? I was not the first person to post and ask anything. There were several other posts before this debate got to where it is.

This is what was originally posted (thankfully someone replied to it with the quote in it):

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: pennsylvania

Just wondering how much weight these things hold in a custody case
1 size of home
2 child has own room
3 debt you are in
4 size of childs room
5 money you make
6 how many kids you and your partner share

I think someone else brought up opposite gender children and stepchildren after this first post by the OP that disappeared from what I can see.

[cdwjava]

Yeah, I kinda figured that quoted post was the original. I read the replies, and just thought I'd add something ... or, reiterate what you and some others wrote.

I am glad that someone pointed out the foster care thing, however, since bedrooms and gender separation DOES make a difference there. As a foster parent myself, we had to make certain that our charges had their own rooms which often meant doubling up our own kids when we had foster kids, since we usually had girls in foster care and our own kids are only boys.

[Taxing Matters]

But if there is ANY option available other than having opposite sex children in their mid-teens in the same room, including having one of them sleep on the couch or on a cot elsewhere in the house, that's what I would go by. It's not illegal but it's damned inappropriate, and I stand by that.

I respect your opinion on that and agree that if it were my household I would try very hard to avoid that circumstance. But as you know we confront lots of situations here in which something might be morally objectionable, at least to some, but is not illegal. And if it is not illegal the state cannot punish someone for it, much as we might like otherwise.

[geek]

There is no law anywhere in the US that says stepsiblings of different genders cannot share a room. The only time it would be an issue is foster care situations. That is completely up to the parents to decide. But it is not illegal to allow a 15 year old girl and 17 year old stepsiblings to room together. Nor siblings. Why would the courts care about the rooming situation of stepsiblings?

Why would the court care about a 15 year old and 17 year old sharing a room? You serious?

Same sex...yeah, ok. Opposite sex? Oh come on.

Different rooms? Ok.

[cbg]

I don't recall ever saying that someone would be punished for it. But qwasi is trying very hard to make everyone say that it's a factor that would be completely overlooked. And I don't believe that to be the case. Whether it would, or would not, be the final factor in determining custody is not something I'm prepared to take a stand on, particularly if we're talking a visitation situation where it might be a night or two occasionally. But on a regular, full time basis if any other option existed? If that is not a concern, it damn well should be. Even if it's a one bedroom house, the option of having the child of the same sex as the parent and the parent share, and have the child of the other sex sleeping on a couch or cot would be preferable to making a 15 year old girl sleep in the same room with her 17 year old stepbrother.

What I really think happened here is that qwasi mis-read the post in which the matter first was issued and was thinking same-sex teens. Having had the mistake pointed out to her and still being upset that she wasn't allowed to tell other people why they got married without it exciting remark, to say the least, she decided to try to brazen it out.

[Dogmatique]

/wades in

"Best interest" is the standard; whether something is legal or not is not the standard. Yes we have seen cases where courts have frowned upon teen stepsiblings sharing a room and have considered it not meeting the best interest standards.

Has custody been decided based purely on this single aspect? I doubt that "because stepsiblings shouldn't share a room" has ever appeared in a judge's decision, but the "best interest" standard is vague enough that in some states the judge can be just as vague in their findings of fact, often (sadly) making decisions based upon their own moral standard. We know this happens, and not infrequently.

Would these decisions be upheld on appeal? Maybe, maybe not. But how many parents have the ability to appeal a custody decision? How many parents would even know it could be appealed?

Sorry, I'm delving too deeply into a discussion that frankly doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.

/wades out

[cdwjava]

Why would the court care about a 15 year old and 17 year old sharing a room? You serious?

Same sex...yeah, ok. Opposite sex? Oh come on.

Different rooms? Ok.

It would almost certainly never be an issue for a court to decide on, so ...

[qwaspolk69]

Why would the court care about a 15 year old and 17 year old sharing a room? You serious?

Same sex...yeah, ok. Opposite sex? Oh come on.

Different rooms? Ok.

So you don't think same gender homosexual stepsiblings there's no chance of "curiosity" but it's automatic with opposite sex stepsiblings? Seriously? C'mon.

The court doesn't care unless there is accusations or a history of sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior and that goes with biological siblings too. The only time that you have to keep opposite gender kids in different rooms is foster care. That's a fact.

That's fine that in your opinion you feel that it's "inappropriate" for opposite gender stepsiblings to room together. If you had stepkids and biological kids and you can room them in opposite rooms then that's cool. That's optimal for anyone. Most kids don't want to share a room with any sibling. I shared a room with one brother until I was 10 or 11. I have four brothers - I'm in the middle. Once the youngest was too big to sleep in a crib and in my parents room they tried to put him with the two older boys but it wasn't enough room. And we didn't have another room - so I got moved upstairs into I would call an "alcove." It wasn't even a room. It was an area next to my parents room and I had no door. My dad was going to build a room but never had the time or money. I survived. I survived sharing a room with my brother. As the older two moved out, then those younger two got their own rooms.

Some people can't give kids separate rooms. If the parents can't afford to do it the court will not fault them for that and will not punish them for putting opposite gender stepkids in the same room together. When this kind of crap comes up it's usually one parent who is being vindictive and finding any reason to get back at the other one.

To each his or her own on what they do with what they can afford.

I don't recall ever saying that someone would be punished for it. But qwasi is trying very hard to make everyone say that it's a factor that would be completely overlooked. And I don't believe that to be the case. Whether it would, or would not, be the final factor in determining custody is not something I'm prepared to take a stand on, particularly if we're talking a visitation situation where it might be a night or two occasionally. But on a regular, full time basis if any other option existed? If that is not a concern, it damn well should be. Even if it's a one bedroom house, the option of having the child of the same sex as the parent and the parent share, and have the child of the other sex sleeping on a couch or cot would be preferable to making a 15 year old girl sleep in the same room with her 17 year old stepbrother.

What I really think happened here is that qwasi mis-read the post in which the matter first was issued and was thinking same-sex teens. Having had the mistake pointed out to her and still being upset that she wasn't allowed to tell other people why they got married without it exciting remark, to say the least, she decided to try to brazen it out.

The only reason it would not be overlooked is if there was a history of inappropriate behavior on the part of one of those kids.

Hypothetical: Mary and Joe are a divorced couple. Joe is remarried and his new wife has a son. He has a daughter. They can only afford a two bedroom home at the time. You really think the judge is going to say "you better find separate rooms for them somehow or buy a bigger house. They might be tempted to have sex with each other if you don't." No I doubt it. That would be insane.

Now if there was a past that the boy or girl had a history of being sexually inappropriate then it might be put into a court order that they have to share separate rooms. But using your situation that all teenagers are so horny they can't control themselves is separate rooms really going to stop them from having sex with each other? No.

No I wasn't thinking same sex teens. I pointed out that it is not illegal for opposite gender stepsiblings to share a room. You think it is or at least think it's immoral for some weird reason. It's not. I didn't make a mistake. You did and have had it pointed out by others that you are wrong. Brazen it out? The only time I brought up same gender stepkids is pointing out that if a couple had two homosexual kids of the same gender what would stop them from having sex with each other either?

I don't think stepsiblings are too often having sex with each other. It might happen but I think someone watches too much Lifetime or something. I don't know why people have this weird perversion that all people think about is sex or that all teenagers are just balls of hormones that can't control themselves.

/wades in

"Best interest" is the standard; whether something is legal or not is not the standard. Yes we have seen cases where courts have frowned upon teen stepsiblings sharing a room and have considered it not meeting the best interest standards.

Has custody been decided based purely on this single aspect? I doubt that "because stepsiblings shouldn't share a room" has ever appeared in a judge's decision, but the "best interest" standard is vague enough that in some states the judge can be just as vague in their findings of fact, often (sadly) making decisions based upon their own moral standard. We know this happens, and not infrequently.

Would these decisions be upheld on appeal? Maybe, maybe not. But how many parents have the ability to appeal a custody decision? How many parents would even know it could be appealed?

Sorry, I'm delving too deeply into a discussion that frankly doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.

/wades out

Where have you seen this?