I found an issue which addresses not directly your question but regards the right behavior regarding the kibbud av vaem when the parents have an inappropriate way of life concerning the halacha, or when they did not behave righteously in the past and repented.
Shulchan Aruch YD 240, 19:
A bastard has a duty to honor his father and to fear him. Even if his father was a miscreant and a sinner, one should honor him and fear him.
Annotation (from the RMA) Some say that one has no duty to honor him if his father is miscreant, only if he is repented (Tur and Mordechai in chapter "Ketsad', annotations on Maimonides sixth chapter of" mamrim")
Tur (above cited):
Rambam wrote: A bastard has a duty to honor his father and his mother, despite that he is exempt from punishment for blows and curses unless they repent. Even if his father was miscreant and sinner, one should honor and fear him. It seems to me (the author of the Tur says this) that because he is miscreant, one has no duty to honor him. We see this from the Gemara Baba Kama 94: "'Where the father left them a cow or a garment or anything which could [easily] be identified, they are liable to restore [it], in order to uphold the honour of the father the earlier clause similarly spoke of them. But why should they be liable to restore in order to uphold the honour of the father? Why not apply to them [the verse] 'nor curse the role, of thy people', [which is explained to mean.] 'so long as he is acting in the spirit of 'thy people'?! - As however, R' Phinehas [elsewhere] stated, that the thief might have made repentance, so also here we suppose that the father had made repentance." The Gemara answers that the sons have a duty to honor their deceased father because he repented. Thus, if he did not repent, there is no duty to honor him.
The Bet Yosef explained that the root of the difference of opinion comes from the understanding of a Mishna in the second chapter of Masechet Yevamot (Mishna 5). The Gemara asked why is the bastard punishable of death for blowing and cursing his father? this father is not acting as his people acts. The Gemara answered that the father already repented. The Rif clarified that the son is exempt from punishment, but the prohibition to hit and curse remains even when the father is miscreant or sinner. The Rif gives a proof from the Gemara Sanhedrin 85a, there, the Gemara said that the son cannot be dispatched by the tribunal to make use of force against his father. The Rif deduced from this Gemara that despite the fact that the father is a sinner, the prohibition to blow and curse remains. The Bet Yosef rejected the proof of the Tur in a short Pilpul.
The Bach gives a proof for the Rambam view from the Midrash which says that Tora gives account of the death of Terach before she tells us the loss of Avraham, contrary to chronogical order. The Midrash says that it was intentional in way to mask the lack of honor from Avraham to his father. Indeed, Terach was a miscreant. The Bach made the Tur's opinion less extreme than it seems by a simple lecture, he said that The Tur allowed to skip the mitsva to honor and fear when this is only by inaction. But finally the Bach conclusion is to follow the stringency of the Rambam.
Conclusion: two views in halacha concerning the honor of bad father and mother, everybody stated that the fact that one parent does not behave righteously, the duties toward him are weaker. Everybody stated that if he did repent the duties of the son come back.