Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Greywolf
- Start date
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Points
- 1,010
opcougar said:
That's it! Here I was wondering whatever kept me together with my girlfriend, and now wife, for the last 34 years, but obviously the answer is clear: Sex. Problem solved.
/SARC OFF
Oh! and then I noticed, Opcougar, that besides your Milpoints, there is a minus sign. Why am I not surprised ???
- Reaction score
- 4,895
- Points
- 1,060
Before anyone makes another post:
Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted
---Staff---
Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted
---Staff---
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 324
- Points
- 930
it wasn' t sex - it was the fear of paying all that child support and alimony. [
From where I lived prior and have sworn not to go back to there is some valid points in what opcougar is posting.
"A lot of the women going round doing this", note the key words. This actually makes the comment about a select group rather than all women, unless you are one of the ones doing this then the comment is not about you. No different than saying a lot of female streetwalkers do so because they don't see any other option. Unless you are a streetwalker it is not about you. Too often with all the PC these days people latch on to the word women and translate it to mean all.
"know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt". Well of course they know it or they wouldn't be going around doing it. Wouldn't you talk to your friend about it if it was you? and yeah if guys could do it there would be a number of them doing the same thing. Male version of this is disability due to the mysterious bad back.
I agree that the system is slanted in a lot of cases whereby the mother gets everything and the father is practically cut out. In one case a friend was paying more than the court ordered but the mother still didn't adhere to the court order on visitations with no repercussions what so ever. Another case my co-worker actually was given custody of his child because the mother was declared unfit and a hazard but he had to give up his career as the courts wouldn't allow him to move to another province when posted. He had to stay where the mother lived in case she should ever get out and be given visitations. Have never known a mother that couldn't move within the country and I am sure if my friend had not paid there would have been repercussions.
but --- regardless of that I agree fully that they are your children (whether natural or not) and you should be taking responsibilty for them no matter what the mother is like or the courts decide. Not happy with the court decision on custody or visitation then make the payments while going back to court and fight it out. ultimately it is the children that have to be the concern and take priority over you. In the cases above - my friend always made the payments until his son was of age and my co-worker retired from the military as they too felt their child was the priority.
Anyone else see this one before - one gentleman I know of actually had his court agreement read that he would not pay child support, giving up all rights and responsibilty for his daughter. Boiled down - this is not my daughter anymore. Now that was harsh.
For the OP - if you are sure about things then go for it and good luck. I imagine a lot of guys have missed out on a good relationship because they feared the child factor. Yes it may come back on you but then again you could miss out on a life time.
From where I lived prior and have sworn not to go back to there is some valid points in what opcougar is posting.
"A lot of the women going round doing this", note the key words. This actually makes the comment about a select group rather than all women, unless you are one of the ones doing this then the comment is not about you. No different than saying a lot of female streetwalkers do so because they don't see any other option. Unless you are a streetwalker it is not about you. Too often with all the PC these days people latch on to the word women and translate it to mean all.
"know this and talk among themselves about pulling this stunt". Well of course they know it or they wouldn't be going around doing it. Wouldn't you talk to your friend about it if it was you? and yeah if guys could do it there would be a number of them doing the same thing. Male version of this is disability due to the mysterious bad back.
I agree that the system is slanted in a lot of cases whereby the mother gets everything and the father is practically cut out. In one case a friend was paying more than the court ordered but the mother still didn't adhere to the court order on visitations with no repercussions what so ever. Another case my co-worker actually was given custody of his child because the mother was declared unfit and a hazard but he had to give up his career as the courts wouldn't allow him to move to another province when posted. He had to stay where the mother lived in case she should ever get out and be given visitations. Have never known a mother that couldn't move within the country and I am sure if my friend had not paid there would have been repercussions.
but --- regardless of that I agree fully that they are your children (whether natural or not) and you should be taking responsibilty for them no matter what the mother is like or the courts decide. Not happy with the court decision on custody or visitation then make the payments while going back to court and fight it out. ultimately it is the children that have to be the concern and take priority over you. In the cases above - my friend always made the payments until his son was of age and my co-worker retired from the military as they too felt their child was the priority.
Anyone else see this one before - one gentleman I know of actually had his court agreement read that he would not pay child support, giving up all rights and responsibilty for his daughter. Boiled down - this is not my daughter anymore. Now that was harsh.
For the OP - if you are sure about things then go for it and good luck. I imagine a lot of guys have missed out on a good relationship because they feared the child factor. Yes it may come back on you but then again you could miss out on a life time.
As a "new wifey" perhaps some of the stuff I brought to light somehow rings true for you, and you know some people who indeed are benefiting from the CS from a couple of guys / pension splits / etc?
Again....if you ask the people receiving the handouts how they will feel if they had to pay out $$$ every month, I am sure you will get a "honest answer" ;D
Again....if you ask the people receiving the handouts how they will feel if they had to pay out $$$ every month, I am sure you will get a "honest answer" ;D
newwifey said:
Phew...34yrs and you think that is something to make song and dance to? Let me post you cases from CANLII with 30+ / 40s years of marriage acrimonious splits. Perhaps it's just a case of "sticking to what you've always known", buying into the "happy wife, happy life" malarky that doesn't take the male into consideration, or not being a self sufficient type??????
Like I said before, due to how some people were raised, they NEED that other person in their lives to help them get through daily. You obviously subscribe to "likes" and points more than I do. Let me guess...you have a Facebook account? ;D
Like I said before, due to how some people were raised, they NEED that other person in their lives to help them get through daily. You obviously subscribe to "likes" and points more than I do. Let me guess...you have a Facebook account? ;D
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,149
- Points
- 1,160
recceguy said:
I guess you're ignored here as well as at home.
In my previous post I linked to the post in question made by opcougar in which he linked to a 2013 CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unmarried-quebec-couples-have-no-right-to-alimony-court-rules-1.1322347 that contained the following sentence.
That was the basis for my belief that using a photo with the image of a well known individual and identifying him as one of the parties involved in the action was perhaps contrary to whatever court order was in place banning publication of the names.
All other (reputable) Canadian news outlets that reported on the case also seem to follow that publication ban, such as this Maclean's piece. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-billionaire-the-law-his-brazilian-ex/
And in this National Post article http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/common-law-partners-in-quebec-not-entitled-to-same-support-as-married-couples-top-court-rules
I have not been able to find a link to an original court order imposing the ban, if such an item exists on-line or in English (I regret that my French skills, such as they were, have deteriorated somewhat after years in Alberta)
Though the Supreme Court judgement continues the practice of not naming them (using A and B vice Eric and Lola), I wasn't able to find specific mention as to an order to maintain anonymity, however that's not surprising as it is not one of the issues presented to the court.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/10536/index.do
Let go by what the courts usually do....according to Blackadder1916, he is "not able to pull any links" : If the gloves don't fit, I guess you must acquit then.
Oh....lets also take into account that there is hardly more than 1 49yr old (at the time) Billionaire in Quebec at the time shacked up with a young Brazilian partner. Canada's 23 billioanires include seven from Quebec. They are, according to the Globe and Mail: Paul Desmarais, Robert Miller, Charles Bronfman, Stephen Jarislowsky, Emanuele (Lino) Saputo, Jean Coutu, Guy Laliberte. So proceed by process of elimination. The names involved in this case are mentioned elsewhere on the internet if you're determined to find out.
Recce....note I wasn't the one that mentioned a ban. However, the press in Canada at the time refered to them as Eric vs Lola, but Lola's home country (Brazil) and others revealed their real names and details of the split.
She is getting 34,000 a month, as well as a castle that Guy Liberte gave her, and some luxury cars.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-billionaire-the-law-his-brazilian-ex/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/05/quebec_s_de_facto_spouses_the_bizarre_legal_case_that_could_force_1_2_million_canadians_to_be_married_against_their_will_.html
This is how close it was in the case: 5-4 decision on spousal support, 8-1 decision on splitting of assets.
She was trying to go against what the law said, and she challenged it. The fact that this blatant cash grab (50 mill +36K alimony a month? ****in lol) got to supreme court when the law is firm about common law marriage in Quebec is ridiculous. I mean this dude probably had the best lawyers and they still had to battle for 7 years even though the law is clear that she isn't entitled to ****.
If the gloves don't fit, I guess you must acquit then.Oh....lets also take into account that there is hardly more than 1 49yr old (at the time) Billionaire in Quebec at the time shacked up with a young Brazilian partner. Canada's 23 billioanires include seven from Quebec. They are, according to the Globe and Mail: Paul Desmarais, Robert Miller, Charles Bronfman, Stephen Jarislowsky, Emanuele (Lino) Saputo, Jean Coutu, Guy Laliberte. So proceed by process of elimination. The names involved in this case are mentioned elsewhere on the internet if you're determined to find out.
Recce....note I wasn't the one that mentioned a ban. However, the press in Canada at the time refered to them as Eric vs Lola, but Lola's home country (Brazil) and others revealed their real names and details of the split.
She is getting 34,000 a month, as well as a castle that Guy Liberte gave her, and some luxury cars.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-billionaire-the-law-his-brazilian-ex/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/05/quebec_s_de_facto_spouses_the_bizarre_legal_case_that_could_force_1_2_million_canadians_to_be_married_against_their_will_.html
This is how close it was in the case: 5-4 decision on spousal support, 8-1 decision on splitting of assets.
She was trying to go against what the law said, and she challenged it. The fact that this blatant cash grab (50 mill +36K alimony a month? ****in lol) got to supreme court when the law is firm about common law marriage in Quebec is ridiculous. I mean this dude probably had the best lawyers and they still had to battle for 7 years even though the law is clear that she isn't entitled to ****.
recceguy said:
What....alimony and child support is suppose to be a sacred topic that men shouldn't talk about? I guess you are going to set your 2 older brothers on me then ;D
Honestly though....do you actually condone child alienation, SS and all the money grab by adults that are capable of working????? Only someone who will do such a thing will think it's OK. Thing is though, some of these people that collect these handouts, will probably have the same happen to their sons by their future spouses, and only then will it sink in
Honestly though....do you actually condone child alienation, SS and all the money grab by adults that are capable of working????? Only someone who will do such a thing will think it's OK. Thing is though, some of these people that collect these handouts, will probably have the same happen to their sons by their future spouses, and only then will it sink in
Strike said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
opcougar said:
My issue with your statements are as follows:
1. If anyone disagrees with YOU it's because we are somehow in agreement or benefitting from this apparent broken system.
2. For every anecdotal evidence example you give of a broken system im sure myself and everyone here could give two of how the system works. I personally know of half a dozen single parents, of both sexes, whose exes have tried screwing them over and the courts have found in favour of the side that played fair.
The problem with anecdotal examples is that they don't show any trend or actual statistic, and being someone with a scientific and logically based through process, if you're going to throw shit, make sure it's backed up by more than anecdotal evidence. Remember, the papers never report on the success stories.
And as for the personal jabs (newwifey not having enough life experience as far as you're concerned because of the handle she chose or the comment about my sending my bros after you) if that's all you've got then maybe you should just stop now. Especially since anyone with any time on this site knows that I can fight my own battles.
- Reaction score
- 1,352
- Points
- 1,260
opcougar said:
It gets talked about,
CF website for child support and whats covered medically?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/69788.0/nowap.html
"A friend of mine is seeking information about the policies the CF has regarding "deadbeat dads" for lack of a better word.
Her babies father, a member of the regular force, is apparently avoiding paying her court ordered child support and sounds like he is feeding her BS like the CF won't cover a child's medical bills if they are not married or living together."
pay Child support
http://army.ca/forums/threads/116639.0
"Hello, how it works, when you enter the military, to the adjusted child support for children down?"
Merged Child Custody in CF thread (joint custody, etc.)
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85126.0/nowap.html
4 pages.
Dependent Child?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119827.0
Relationship Matter...Help Needed
https://army.ca/forums/threads/107361.0
"I joined the military 4yrs ago and I have a 4yr old with my wife. It seems of late, we have both come to realize after 10yrs of marriage that our interests and ways just aren't compatible."
General Question Suport for Dependant
https://army.ca/forums/threads/22182.0
"My question is where can a person go to get legal answers as far as some sort of payment for the child etc if I am correct when someone goes to jail pay automatically stop's so how is this young lady supposed to support herself and there son and no one will speak to her because they are not considered common law.
I would think that DND has somewhat of an obligation to make sure that the child at least is somewhat taken care off."
Getting separated need help with paperwork?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/103671.0.html
"So my common law fiance has decided to leave me. We broke up October 21st while I was on deployment and I've had to come home to deal with it, but we still live together till she can find a place. I know that's messed up but I didn't want to put her out in the cold so to speak. She will be gone in January. Now I need help drawing up a separation agreement.
She said she doesn't want any part of my pension, savings accounts, or spousal support from me. Were also going to do 50/50 child custody. I know, it's a freaking miracle. I need to get this stuff in writing and get her John Hancock on it ASAP."
etc...
Mariomike...Kudos for pulling all that up. However, my question was rhetorical to the 'new wifey' that said "wow", as if women are the only ones that are suppose to discuss this at coffee meets or on Facebook.
BLUF: the system as it is right now is broken, and family law is biased towards one gender. Well of course there are those that will disagree for obvious reason i.e. why work when someone can give me money that is tax free (CS), and I can split their pension 50%, along with division of assets.
Currently know 2 guys paying mortgage for a house they aren't living in, whilst their STBXs already have a Mr Wonderful move in playing Dr House.
BLUF: the system as it is right now is broken, and family law is biased towards one gender. Well of course there are those that will disagree for obvious reason i.e. why work when someone can give me money that is tax free (CS), and I can split their pension 50%, along with division of assets.
Currently know 2 guys paying mortgage for a house they aren't living in, whilst their STBXs already have a Mr Wonderful move in playing Dr House.
mariomike said:Thanks, Lumber.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,149
- Points
- 1,160
mariomike said:
I was going to say "Don't suggest more threads in which to add his comments", but alas, after checking, he had already posted in at least two of your list.
opcougar said:
Rings true for me? I'm not sure I appreciate what you're implying.
Not that you need to know, I have never been the recipient of spousal support, I could hardly get child support from my dead beat ex. He opted out of being a parent. His choice.
The reason SOME get child support from more than one person, is people get used to the lifestyle, kids, spouses, the whole family. ALL that money supports the whole house. You don't want to pay additional support (maybe), don't date someone with kids, play a parent, then split.
(And you do know, this can go both ways, it's not just the money grubbing ladies!)
I think you need to fill out a hurt feelings report. You're not much better than a troll. Your attitude sucks.
- Reaction score
- 3,459
- Points
- 1,160
opcougar's point got washed away in his posting style and blanket coverage. The issue here is that the government has determined a certain level of child support to be sufficient based on income/number of children. The cost doesn't change based on how many ex's someone has, that level should be maintained, not increased. If there's 2 ex spouses, the level should be split equally based on income level of each of the former spouses. By allowing double and triple dipping, it incentivizes the very slim minority to abuse the system to their benefit.
This should not be a gender-based issue, it would be just as easy for a male to abuse it. The fact that the courts are slanted towards allowing women custody more often than not, is a completely different debate, and needs to be isolated from this one.
This should not be a gender-based issue, it would be just as easy for a male to abuse it. The fact that the courts are slanted towards allowing women custody more often than not, is a completely different debate, and needs to be isolated from this one.
Similar threads
