Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[Pusser]

4. Don't let sex cloud your judgement, and even worse if the person doesn't work as you will have to pay child support and alimony, which can leave you with nothing after your wages is being garnished via the OR.

Good advice, but please be careful.  The OR does not garnish anybody's wages.  They simply execute a court order and have no input whatsoever into the decision.

 

[opcougar]

You are right. Let me clarify what I meant: The OR gets sent a copy of the court order by the family responsibility office (FRO in Ontario) or Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP in Alberta), if/after they've made an attempt to contact the payor with no luck i.e. deadbeat

Some people pay their CS voluntarily to the payee, with both parties opting out of the FRO and MEP process.

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/familyResponsibility/Recipient/delayed_payments.aspx

https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/mep/Pages/default.asp

Just to add, it doesn't end at child support....there is also section 7 payments ( funds towards extracurricular activities, medical, dental, education, etc).

All this for kid(s) that isn't your own, and whom you might not get to see if the mother is a vindictive type who believes in alienating you.

Good advice, but please be careful.  The OR does not garnish anybody's wages.  They simply execute a court order and have no input whatsoever into the decision.

 

[Strike]

...A lot of the women going round doing this, know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt.

After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.  :

 

[captloadie]

And if you were involved enough in their lives to attend PTA meetings and have them call you Daddy, wouldn't you want the best for them, regardless of your feelings for their mother?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.  :

Although he does come across as "just a little bitter".  He is partially correct as I remember being privy to conversations where the girls were deciding who they wanted to impregnate them in Pet back in the 80's. [18 years mothers allowance]  One girl said she wouldn't even be telling him as she had her sights on a 'good guy' but wanted this guys looks for the child, and I know that is how it worked out for her.

But to even the rhetoric, I'm sure that if men could get pregnant there would be the same scenario happening that way so it's not that we wouldn't..........

"Of course it's yours Halle Berry, you're the only girl I've ever been with." ;D

 

[Strike]

Although he does come across as "just a little bitter".  He is partially correct as I remember being privy to conversations where the girls were deciding who they wanted to impregnate them in Pet back in the 80's. [18 years mothers allowance]  One girl said she wouldn't even be telling him as she had her sights on a 'good guy' but wanted this guys looks for the child, and I know that is how it worked out for her.

But to even the rhetoric, I'm sure that if men could get pregnant there would be the same scenario happening that way so it's not that we wouldn't..........

"Of course it's yours Halle Berry, you're the only girl I've ever been with." ;D

The equivalent would be the guy that does SFA while the wife works, cooks, cleans, shovels, etc.

And yes, there are guys that are like that as well, but you don't see women painting all guys with that same brush and it's unfair to do that to women.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That was me agreeing with you Strike......I brought it back to "some'.  Just like some guys would......if they could.

 

[Strike]

That was me agreeing with you Strike......I brought it back to "some'.  Just like some guys would......if they could.

Call me hormonal.    32 weeks down and less than 8 to go before I spontaneously lose at least 10 lbs.

Consider this a reason for the snarkiness of my previous posts and a warning that my future posts are just going to get worse. 

 

[opcougar]

Ideally yes, but do you enjoy paying for a car you are not driving? Oh wait...you are going to tell me it's different?

And if you were involved enough in their lives to attend PTA meetings and have them call you Daddy, wouldn't you want the best for them, regardless of your feelings for their mother?

 

[opcougar]

Hmmm...since when does "a lot of women that go round doing this", equate to ALL WOMEN? Perhaps you should read my post agin, rather than just knee-jerk a reaction. Quebec has it right, and am sure if people knew of all this money grab taht awaits them if things go South, many might think twice before taking the leap.

What is the incentive for someone collecting payments for the next 18yrs from 2, 3 4 guys wanting to go back to work? NONE

After seeing this statement, I might be more inclined to think any break ups you've gone through might have been your fault.  Seriously, way to slam the female sex in your WHOLE post.  :

 

[PMedMoe]

Wow....just....wow. And I can't even blame hormones....or maybe I can... :

 

[captloadie]

When I right off a vehicle, or trade it in for a new model, I might shed a tear, but I don't worry about how its doing after I hand over the keys. I'd support my kids, any and all of them, until my last breath.

Yes, there vindictive ex-spouses and baby mommas out there, but guess what, when you bring a life into this world, or take responsibility for that life, your 50% responsible for the rest of yours. Maybe if more parents took on this mind set, we'd have less troubled kids out there.

 

[opcougar]

The archaic laws have to change. In some States in the US....50-50 parenting after a marriage breakdown is the de-facto until one party can reasonable prove (no hearsay) that the other parent shouldn't have their kid(s). In Canada most of the time, the system is skewed / bias towards one party. If the courts make it that both parents get to keep the kids (unless one doesn't want to), then the mentality will change. The length some peopel will go to get full table amount is mind blowing...allegations, etc. Point in case: False allegations is what made this case (Gregory Alan Elliott not guilty in Twitter harassment case) collapse, They were making false allegations he was sexually assaulting 13 yr old girls or something....Pretty ridiculous....

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj35/2016oncj35.html

The story below is sad and of a vindictive nature

http://www.wkyc.com/news/nation-now/dallas-dad-not-guilty-for-taking-tween-daughters-phone/23249542

 

[opcougar]

Again....the point made is with regards to step-parent, which is what the person going off to basic above is. I am responsible for my child also and every sane/rational parent should be. Also a kid(s) have rights to have both parents in their lives without one parent using spitefulness to alienate the kids (hapens in many divorce cases).

Again, nobody likes paying for something that isn't theirs, especially if you are not given a chance to be part of it. Our current system allows for people to just go round hooking up, and later expect the new spouse to payout on top of what they are currently getting i.e. double, triple dipping. The system is whack.

When I right off a vehicle, or trade it in for a new model, I might shed a tear, but I don't worry about how its doing after I hand over the keys. I'd support my kids, any and all of them, until my last breath.

Yes, there vindictive ex-spouses and baby mommas out there, but guess what, when you bring a life into this world, or take responsibility for that life, your 50% responsible for the rest of yours. Maybe if more parents took on this mind set, we'd have less troubled kids out there.

 

[Strike]

Again, nobody likes paying for something that isn't theirs, especially if you are not given a chance to be part of it. Our current system allows for people to just go round hooking up, and later expect the new spouse to payout on top of what they are currently getting i.e. double, triple dipping. The system is whack.

Or...again, nobody likes people who get in above their heads who realize that parenting isn't for them even though it's expected when they get involved with a person with kids.  Our current system makes sure that these people are left accountable for affecting more than the lives of grown adults so hopefully they take some responsibility for their actions.

My friend, the pendulum swings both ways and, even though you're going to rebut that, well, of course it does and you NEVER suggested otherwise, your posts suggest quite the opposite.

If you're going to provide advice to the poster please try to do so without inflicting your personal biases and feelings about how the laws need to be 'fixed.'

 

[Halifax Tar]

op:

 

[opcougar]

I don't have any vested interest in the whole matter, but I have had to deal with people who were going through the unforeseen circumstances. Yes it swings both ways, but how many of the collectors of all these payments, will themselves like to be dishing out payments every month?

If you think the money being paid actually goes to the kid(s), then you are deluded.

A lot of people that get into relationship don't see past the sex, and some just do it becaus ethey are useless on their own due to how they've been raised. Some people always have to be in relationships, and they don't care what the circumstances are as long as they are getting laid when they can get it. Each to their own, but you only have yourself to blame is you shack up with someone that doesn't work or have any markatable skills.

The federal child support guidelines and alimony calculations should be taught as a class in high school just like sex ed

Or...again, nobody likes people who get in above their heads who realize that parenting isn't for them even though it's expected when they get involved with a person with kids.  Our current system makes sure that these people are left accountable for affecting more than the lives of grown adults so hopefully they take some responsibility for their actions.

My friend, the pendulum swings both ways and, even though you're going to rebut that, well, of course it does and you NEVER suggested otherwise, your posts suggest quite the opposite.

If you're going to provide advice to the poster please try to do so without inflicting your personal biases and feelings about how the laws need to be 'fixed.'

 

[Blackadder1916]

I don't have any vested interest in the whole matter, but I have had to deal with people who were going through the unforeseen circumstances.  . . . . .

Yeah sure, but your bitterness (skewed?) point of view comes through every time you enter a discussion that even marginally touches on marriage breakdown.  In your post that touched off this latest contretemps, you label of one of the parties in the legal battle that you use as an example of Quebec's right approach as "his Brazilian gold digger gf" and even include a photo of the other party to that legal action (with his "current" girlfriend).  Since the current one is also a model (ex-model?) who the Canadian billionaire also met and hooked up with at the age of 17 and has since had a couple of children together, there seems to be a pattern.  Is she also a gold digger? Though the two women seem to be almost identical in appearance (except for their ages - trade in for a newer model comes to mind), there is a difference.  Hopefully, there must have been some emotional aspect to the relationships that the gentleman in question formed with these ladies.

No, I don't follow social media or the sex lives of the ultra rich and sleazy, but I was wondering why you included a picture that was not in the linked news article and identified an individual even though the article stated "a court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names" .  Since I rarely take anything spewed out on the internet at face value, it didn't take much to find on the internet (ironic, I know) enough to identify the inconsistencies of your post.  I only bring it to light, not that I have a "vested interest in the matter" ( ;D), but, because if there is a Canadian court order that precludes identifying the individuals in the case, the owner of this site may be open to legal action due to your post.  You could have just as easily cited the CBC article as background to your argument without including a visual example (mistaken though it was in the identity of the woman) of a "gold digger" or the identities of the parties involved.

Now, excuse me while I go award your post negative milpoints.

 

[opcougar]

The Brazilian giflfriend mother of his kids who wanted more than she was being offered is the same person. Yes there was a publication ban, but in this day and age you don't have to look far to get pictures. I don't follow the ultra rich either, and the discussion only came up in relation to Quebec where common law is not recognized when it comes to alimony.

Trying to put up smoking mirrors by you doesn't take away from the fact that most men getting into relationship with or without people with kids, don't seem to see past the sex. I insist that if many are shown the child support table and what they might end up paying if things go South, many will think twice.

Oh....I don't do social media of any kind and don't have a Facebook account.

Yeah sure, but your bitterness (skewed?) point of view comes through every time you enter a discussion that even marginally touches on marriage breakdown.  In your post that touched off this latest contretemps, you label of one of the parties in the legal battle that you use as an example of Quebec's right approach as "his Brazilian gold digger gf" and even include a photo of the other party to that legal action (with his "current" girlfriend).  Since the current one is also a model (ex-model?) who the Canadian billionaire also met and hooked up with at the age of 17 and has since had a couple of children together, there seems to be a pattern.  Is she also a gold digger? Though the two women seem to be almost identical in appearance (except for their ages - trade in for a newer model comes to mind), there is a difference.  Hopefully, there must have been some emotional aspect to the relationships that the gentleman in question formed with these ladies.

No, I don't follow social media or the sex lives of the ultra rich and sleazy, but I was wondering why you included a picture that was not in the linked news article and identified an individual even though the article stated "a court order prevents the publication of the parties' real names" .  Since I rarely take anything spewed out on the internet at face value, it didn't take much to find on the internet (ironic, I know) enough to identify the inconsistencies of your post.  I only bring it to light, not that I have a "vested interest in the matter" ( ;D), but, because if there is a Canadian court order that precludes identifying the individuals in the case, the owner of this site may be open to legal action due to your post.  You could have just as easily cited the CBC article as background to your argument without including a visual example (mistaken though it was in the identity of the woman) of a "gold digger" or the identities of the parties involved.

Now, excuse me while I go award your post negative milpoints.

 

[Lumber]

Trying to put up smoking mirrors by you doesn't take away from the fact that most men getting into relationship with or without people with kids, don't seem to see past the sex.

Take what I'm sure is your highly qualified and I'm certain statistically supported number of "most men" and subtract 1 from it so as to exclude me from your generalization.