Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[murrdawg]

I am not Log, and there were medical reasons behind why the child came about in the first place.

But as "The regulations state the joint support/custody of the child.  They don't need to define when the fetus becomes a child because you cannot support or have custody of a child that is still in the womb.", this is incorrect, because you can support the child by taking care of its environment, meaning the spouse. The spouse also becomes dependant upon the male in the last little bit of the pregnancy in many ways since she is unable to work and limited in her movements etc. Also, you need a safe environment for the child in the womb, which means taking care of the mother. See what I'm getting at? Sure, directly, no you cannot support the child that is in the womb, however, you can indirectly support it by trying to support the environment in which it is in.

 

[PMedMoe]

The spouse also becomes dependant upon the male in the last little bit of the pregnancy in many ways since she is unable to work and limited in her movements etc.

Only in extreme circumstances would a woman have difficulties like that in the latter stage of her pregnancy.  I worked right up to 17 days prior to giving birth.  I would have worked longer but I was a Reservist and was not allowed to work into the month in which I was due.  I wonder if they've changed that rule?

What you are arguing is semantics.  The regulations are clear.  If you're willing to declare common-law, why not just get married?  Then she is covered on your benefits effective on your marriage date.

 

[CountDC]

:rofl:

All the single mothers in the world and you think women are dependant on men???  How about the military spouses that are having babies while their husband is away?  How ever do they do it?

 

[murrdawg]

Yes! Semantics, that is what I was looking for earlier.

As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . there were medical reasons behind why the child came about in the first place . . .

Asexual reproduction? . . . or immaculate conception! . . .

While you may continue hoping that by some loophole of semantics you can make a case that you have custody/support of "the child" prior to its birth, the legal reality is that it does not exist as an individual person until it is delivered alive outside its mother.  One of the documents you will most likely have to provide to make your claim of common-law status is the child's birth certificate - to prove that it exists.

 

[PMedMoe]

As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.

Then why do you want to declare common-law?  You do realize that's as legally binding as marriage, right??  Maybe you should speak to a lawyer.......

 

[armyvern]

Yes! Semantics, that is what I was looking for earlier.

As for marriage, we have only been with each other for 7 months in a week. We haven't even lived with one another yet so if we were to get married, it could lead to potential problems if we were to get married. We both agreed that we do not want to get married because of a child, but rather because we love one another.

Dude,

Word up.

Understand fully that she's getting your pension if you're common-law and you split - if she wants it. Just like being married.

PS: I went to the field until 6 weeks before I had my oldest; and carried a ruck two days before. I LIVED.

A man required to "support" me simply because I'm pregnant? Admirable, but laughable --- that's exactly why Gawd sees to it that she has us girls give birth instead of men.

GET MARRIED ONLY IF YOU LOVE EACH OTHER!!??

Holy fuck. You shouldn't be having KIDS if you having been able to confirm yet that you actually "LOVE EACH OTHER".

Refer to earlier Public Service Announcement from Vern. Point proven.

 

[murrdawg]

Asexual reproduction? . . . or immaculate conception! . . .

While you may continue hoping that by some loophole of semantics you can make a case that you have custody/support of "the child" prior to its birth, the legal reality is that it does not exist as an individual person until it is delivered alive outside its mother.  One of the documents you will most likely have to provide to make your claim of common-law status is the child's birth certificate - to prove that it exists.

More like allergies, and sickness.... As for the legal reality, I am beginning to come to terms with it.

As for the common-law, and why... Well there's two reasons. One is because without it, I am not able to live off campus next year because I am on a UPR for physical fitness because I am not meeting RMC's standard of fitness (however, I am passing the CF Expres standard) and the people chosen for live-offs have already been chosen. The second reason is my girlfriend and I had originally been thinking of taking our relationship to the next level by living with one another. Fortunately my live-off status has been approved because they see it could be difficult paper trail wise to allow me to live off 1.5 months before the baby is due, so they said I might as well start living off from the beginning.

On the benefits side, since she is just finishing school (just placement left... had to be delayed because she had mono), it will be tight for her to get the 600 hours of work to be entitled to maternity leave, and with me being on an OCdt's salary, any medications that might need to be required (she has asthma, and she has already been given a prescription for morning sickness (she has it to the extreme) but we can't afford either because she's not working right now, and I don't have a lot left over after my bills) we can't cover, so at least with the benefits package, at least the medications can be covered. That was the main benefit I was looking at. It wasn't just everything as a whole, it was moreso focused on the meds.

So there's a few reasons why I'd want common-law. Marriage is being looked at that if next year living together works out well (sure there will be rough times, but in every relationship there is) and if we can handle the baby alright (which is also a rough time... and with the baby due In December, at least it gives some time of our relationship first, then having the baby) and if we can pull through everything ok, and still want to be with one another, then I'd be looking at proposing at the end of next school year.

 

[murrdawg]

Holy frig. You shouldn't be having KIDS if you having been able to confirm yet that you actually "LOVE EACH OTHER".

Things happen. Everything happens for a reason. The way things are looking, everything will turn out fine, but it's still going through the steps. Do you know how bad it would sound to say to your child that you got married BECAUSE of them?

 

[armyvern]

Things happen. Everything happens for a reason. The way things are looking, everything will turn out fine, but it's still going through the steps. Do you know how bad it would sound to say to your child that you got married BECAUSE of them?

So, you telling them this instead ... ??

"Sorry, you were an accident - your mom & I still weren't sure that we even loved each other when you came about. Please wear a condom if you grow up to decide to do silly things like this yourself (PLEASE!!)."

Vern shakes head and mutters to self: "Gawd, apparently you can experience worse."

 

[murrdawg]

No, we are not looking at it as a mistake, but rather a gift meant to happen. So we are going to be telling them that they were an unexpected gift from God. I think this is straying from the original thread topic.

 

[CountDC]

More like allergies, and sickness.... As for the legal reality, I am beginning to come to terms with it.

Which allergy kept you from putting a sock on it or her from keeping her legs close??  Please stop - do not make excuses for a preganancy.  It happened because you both made a choice even though it is obvious now that neither one were prepared.  Now you are looking for some little loop hole to help you deal with the repercussion of your actions.

As for telling your chiild you got married because of them - is it better to say we shacked up for a year because of you??

 

[murrdawg]

CountDC, I think you took things the wrong way... We aren't making excuses for the pregnancy. When we discovered she was allergic to condoms, and when we discovered birth control made her sick, we had discussed options of alternatives, etc. Abstinence is a little harder to go at for a 19-21 year old male... It's in human nature. Yes we made the choice, and we are taking responsibility for our actions. I'm not looking for a loophole to help deal with the repercussions, but merely using the most of the resources available on all technicalities.

If we were already considering living together in the first place, the reasoning isn't because of the child...

 

[beach_bum]

Back to the original focus of this thread (though the sidetracks are entertaining), the fetus is NOT considered a child (or a dependant) until it is born.  You can argue all you want about the point after an abortion can't be performed or any other point, but that's the cold hard reality of the matter.

 

[armyvern]

No, we are not looking at it as a mistake, but rather a gift meant to happen. So we are going to be telling them that they were an unexpected gift from God. I think this is straying from the original thread topic.

Good, then waiting until you're entitled to claim Common Law should not be an issue.

Topic closed now - I presume?

Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada may be of assistance to you ... it clearly lays out just exactly when a "person" is legally condiered a "person" ... a "human" considered a "human" etc etc ...

And it all says "after fully emerging from the birth canal, live."

 

[murrdawg]

Perfect, what I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[armyvern]

Perfect, what I was looking for. Thanks.

Yes, yes it was.

I've read it. Bet your next step now is to argue that as it reads "a child becomes a person when it emerges fully ...." that your next step will be:

But, the Criminal Code of Canada says "the child doesn't become a person until it's born", but your Common Law calls the fetus a "child" in this context ...

That one's already been to the Supreme Court a couple of times now - brought forward by Anti-abortionists in response to the Morgentaller ruling ...

They lost, numerous times.

 

[CountDC]

CountDC, I think you took things the wrong way... We aren't making excuses for the pregnancy. When we discovered she was allergic to condoms, and when we discovered birth control made her sick, we had discussed options of alternatives, etc. Abstinence is a little harder to go at for a 19-21 year old male... It's in human nature. Yes we made the choice, and we are taking responsibility for our actions. I'm not looking for a loophole to help deal with the repercussions, but merely using the most of the resources available on all technicalities.

If we were already considering living together in the first place, the reasoning isn't because of the child...

A person is not allergic to condoms - they may be allergic to the material used in one type such as latex (which my wife happens to be).  Use a non latex condom such as sheep skin.  You can even get the non latex from the military pharmacist.  Guess you didn't check enough on alternatives.

I was 19-21 too - abstinence was not really that hard - it was a choice that one made.  Do I want to have a baby or not?  Age has no bearing on it - the same choice is just as easy now.

and it still sounds like excuses - abstinence is hard?? So is life - deal with it, stick a sock on it or keep it in your pants until you are ready for kids. 

 

[murrdawg]

No, I'm not to go that far, and  besides, anti-abortionists did win in one aspect when the bill about fetus rights came up, however, they saw that it overruled women's rights, so therefore lost because of that reason.

ArmyVern, this topic is now closed. No more on it, I had what I was looking for, that's it. Don't need to make the molehill into a mountain. Thanks for your courtesy to accept this, and say no more on this.

And as for CountDC, I'm not sure if it might be just allergic, but we tried all kinds of condoms, latex and non, and all caused her pain, and lubricant causes her to have yeast infections. Say what you want, but you were young once too...

Moderators who see this topic, if you can close and lock it, it is now done.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

With pleasure.
Locked