Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[CountDC]

We used to ask for copy of the rental agreement with both names on it or/and a copy of a bill with the partners name and address on it to confirm both were at the same address for the required period.  Of course not everyone plans or thinks of this so everything has only one name.  In those cases we have used a letter from the landlord certifying that they have both lived there since x date.  Not sure if drivers license is something that could be used everywhere - in Ontario it has the address and the issue date so could be used.

 

[murrdawg]

The way it sounded when I was told about different bases recognizing common-law on different levels, was that when it comes to moving expenses and what not, some bases offer the benefits to the spouse as a wife (i.e. their stuff gets moved too) but then I heard some bases don't offer all the same benefits as if she were my wife, i.e. she'd have to find a way to move her own things. So this is wrong? A spouse is a spouse is a spouse?

 

[armyvern]

The way it sounded when I was told about different bases recognizing common-law on different levels, was that when it comes to moving expenses and what not, some bases offer the benefits to the spouse as a wife (i.e. their stuff gets moved too) but then I heard some bases don't offer all the same benefits as if she were my wife, i.e. she'd have to find a way to move her own things. So this is wrong? A spouse is a spouse is a spouse?

If you are common-law and IF you have had her added onto your personnel records as such through your OR ...

She is legally a dependant spouse, thus move expenses during your postings are covered ...

And, "her stuff" should be "our stuff" if you're common-law. If she has stuff stored somewhere other than where "you both" reside ... it is not the CFs obligation to move it. It is their obligation to move you, your spouse (common-law or married), and your dependants from the address of your current residense to your next one --- if you are moving at the Government's behest.

 

[CountDC]

Agree with everything in Vern's post except the "our stuff" part - they say this but in reality everything is hers at her convenience.    ;D

 

[armyvern]

Agree with everything in Vern's post except the "our stuff" part - they say this but in reality everything is hers at her convenience.    ;D

Ahh, that sucks for you.

I'm more of a "what's mine is mine; what's yours is ours, kind-of-girl."

 

[Occam]

I thought this might be pertinent to the original question.

------------

01  01  071554Z MAY  09  PP PP      UUUU                CMP 037/09

            NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
            CANFORGEN 083/09
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 083/09  CMP 037/09
SIC WAC
SUBJ: CLARIFICATION COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP IN THE CANADIAN FORCES(CF)
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS:  A. QR AND O 1.075
B. CFAO 19-41
C. ADM HR MIL INSTR 15/06
1.  BASED ON THE NUMBER OF QUERIES RECEIVED FROM COMMANDERS AT
VARIOUS LEVELS, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT SOME CLARIFICATION OF
THE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP SHOULD BE PROVIDED. 
THIS IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT GIVEN THE OP TEMPO BEING EXPERIENCED
AND THE CASUALTIES SUSTAINED BY THE CF ON DEPLOYMENT.  THIS
CANFORGEN WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING BENEFITS
AND LIMITATIONS OF CF RECOGNITION OF COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP
2.  FOR THE CF, COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP IS DEFINED BY REF A.  REF B
WAS BASED ON A PREVIOUS VERSION OF REF A AND HAS BEEN CANCELLED. 
WORK IS UNDER WAY TO UPDATE THE CONTENT OF REF C
3.  WORDING IN REF C MAY HAVE LED MEMBERS TO BELIEVE THAT AN INTENT
TO COHABIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR COMMON-LAW
PARTNERSHIP.  IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT MEMBERS MUST HAVE
COMMENCED COHABITATION WITH THEIR PARTNERS PRIOR TO ANY PERIOD OF
SEPARATION FOR MILITARY REASONS.  TO BE CLEAR TWO PERSONS WHO HAVE
NEVER COHABITED CANNOT BE IN A COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP, DESPITE
MEETING ANY OR ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARA 4.4 OF REF C
4. I ASK CF LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS TO REMIND THEIR PERSONNEL THAT
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP RECOGNITION BY THE CF HAS A LIMITED EFFECT,
NOTABLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO BENEFITS AND
ENTITLEMENTS GOVERNED BY OTHER ACTS.  COMMANDERS SHOULD ALSO TAKE
STEPS SO THAT MOUNTING BASES AND DEPARTURE ASSISTANCE GROUP (DAG)
OPI S GIVE THIS MESSAGE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION SO THAT
ALL DEPLOYING PERSONNEL ARE FULLY INFORMED ON ITS CONTENTS.
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ON COMMON LAW PARTNERSHIPS IS BEING DEVELOPED
FOR INCLUSION IN DAG BRIEFINGS. IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPERATIVE THAT
MEMBERS SCREENING FOR DEPLOYMENT BE REMINDED WITHOUT DELAY OF THE
EXISTING FRAMEWORK GOVERNING COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP AND ITS IMPACTS
ON CF ENTITLEMENTS AND BENEFITS
5.  ALL MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT RECOGNITION OF COMMON-LAW
PARTNERSHIPS, AS SET OUT UNDER REFS A AND C, APPLIES ONLY TO
REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE CF UNDER THE
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT (NDA). ACCESS TO BENEFITS UNDER ANY OTHER ACT,
SUCH AS SURVIVOR S BENEFITS OR REHABILITATION PROGRAMS FOR SPOUSES,
CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION. IN SHORT,
THE EFFECT OF COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP RECOGNITION BY THE CF IS
LIMITED AND DOES NOT DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS AND
ENTITLEMENTS GOVERNED BY OTHER ACTS
6.  CO S ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR CF RECOGNITION OF
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP AND ARE TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS APPLYING FOR
COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT
THAT THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED AT REFS A AND C. CO
S SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR LOCAL AJAG/DJA IF LEGAL ADVICE IS
REQUIRED IN THIS MATTER. YOU MAY CONTACT DHRD 2-3, MAJ EDMILAO FOR
POLICY CLARIFICATION
7.  SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP

 

[ruckmarch]

Ahh, that sucks for you.

I'm more of a "what's mine is mine; what's yours is ours, kind-of-girl."

There you have it lads.....touche'

Vern just proved the stereotype right LOL

 

[murrdawg]

Here's a question, can someone find for me a quote for at what time can common-law status can be declared in the instance of pregnancy? I know in QR&O 1.075 it says  "for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child" but what is the legal definiton of a child? Is it as soon as the spous is pregnant? Is it a certain time before the spouse gives birth? Is it when the baby is born???

 

[BinRat55]

Here's a question, can someone find for me ...

Can't you find for yourself? I'm sorry if this answer offends you or anyone else, but people have to learn to do their own research somewhere along the way - especially those at RMC about to be our future leaders...

 

[murrdawg]

Can't you find for yourself? I'm sorry if this answer offends you or anyone else, but people have to learn to do their own research somewhere along the way - especially those at RMC about to be our future leaders...

I have been trying to find it, for the last month, still haven't found it and if you haven't noticed, I'm recently new to the air force forums as well, so I have been trying to look for it on my own, and not having much luck. I wouldn't be asking if I JUST literally had to find out what the definition is. This has been a problem I have been working on for weeks. So in this case, you are a tad mistaken, I have been trying to do my own research, and not having much luck therefore I am using resources to try and help me out.

 

[beach_bum]

It's once the child is born.

 

[murrdawg]

Can common-law be granted earlier in the pregnancy?

 

[Occam]

A few people now have said that you cannot claim common law prior to the birth of the child.  Either take their word at face value, or make a phone call to the Kingston AJAG office, and I'm sure someone there can give you a definitive legal answer.  There aren't many occasions where a member can get legal advice from an AJAG lawyer - this would probably be one of them.

 

[PMedMoe]

I doubt it.  The QR&O clearly states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child.

QR&O Vol 1

CMP Instruction 15/06
Commom-Law Partnerships

 

[murrdawg]

I might take a look into advice from AJAG, because of the situation we are in. I have seen the QR&O, and yes, it states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child, but then again, by their terms, what is the definiton of a child legally? Because according to the American Fetal Rights, there is up to a certain point in pregnancy where an abortion cannot happen, and the child is considered a child, but yet Canada has no such right since the bill got shot down because it would have ruined Women's Rights.

 

[armyvern]

I might take a look into advice from AJAG, because of the situation we are in. I have seen the QR&O, and yes, it states that the member and the person have jointly assumed custody of a child, but then again, by their terms, what is the definiton of a child legally? Because according to the American Fetal Rights, there is up to a certain point in pregnancy where an abortion cannot happen, and the child is considered a child, but yet Canada has no such right since the bill got shot down because it would have ruined Women's Rights.

This is Canada, not the US.

1) Call the AJAG as you obviously aren't believing what you are reading and being told; you've been provided with the regulations.

2) recently here, it was "when the child was born" ... that's the date they allowed him to go pick up some PMQ keys; not a nano-second before that birth.

3) Here's the definition of "Custody" for you:

cus·to·dy (kst-d)
n. pl. cus·to·dies
1. The act or right of guarding, especially such a right granted by a court: an adult who was given custody of the child.
2. Care, supervision, and control exerted by one in charge. See Synonyms at care.
3. The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police:

Hmmm. Number 2 is close, but I guess you actually have to have that child in order to be caring for, supervising and controlling it no?

And, to quote from those exact regulations given you:

(b) for a period of less than one year, if the member and the person have jointly assumed the support of a child.

(3) In the definition “common-law partner”, child means a child or legal ward of the common-law partner or the member or both, or an individual adopted legally or in fact by the common-law partner or the member or both.

Does that sound like they're speaking of a fetus to you? If you think so, wow. Until you've experience a "live-birth" ... there simply is not a "child" be supported or able to be adopted - think about it.

Obviously, you'll need to confirm with the AJAG to satisfy your "but in America" argument ... however, it's also quite obvious that you won't be happy with their answer either.

 

[murrdawg]

1) Call the AJAG as you obviously aren't believing what you are reading and being told; you've been provided with the regulations.

2) recently here, it was "when the child was born" ... that's the date they allowed him to go pick up some PMQ keys; not a nano-second before that birth.

3) Here's the definition of "Custody" for you:
Hmmm. Number 2 is close, but I guess you actually have to have that child in order to be caring for, supervising and controlling it no?

And, to quote from those exact regulations given you:

Does that sound like they're speaking of a fetus to you? If you think so, wow. Until you've experience a "live-birth" ... there simply is not a "child" be supported or able to be adopted - think about it.

Obviously, you'll need to confirm with the AJAG to satisfy your "but in America" argument ... however, it's also quite obvious that you won't be happy with their answer either.

All I was trying to say was that in the States they have a variation of a definition of a child. That's what this issue was about. What is the legal term of a child. Because according to some locations I was reading, people refer to a certain moment in time during pregnancy when the baby is past the point of an abortion where it is then a child. Others, it's as soon as it is born between infancy and adolescence. So I was really looking for an exact definition so that perhaps, with slight hope, that I might be able to put my girlfriend under my medical plan (mainly for the meds portion).  It's not that I was disregarding regulations, because I've done the research on the policies regarding common-law, but they all refer to a child, so then it's defining at what point is it a child? Because some technicality is out there where it is a child as soon as my girlfriend became pregnant. Yes, I see in general they refer to when the child is born, but I was trying to have a glimmer of hope that somewhere's, there is a glimpse where it is written under government policy that a child exists as soon as someone is pregnant.

 

[PMedMoe]

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.

Does that make it any clearer??

 

[CountDC]

:brickwall:  Please tell me you are not Log

 

[armyvern]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM VERN:

Condoms, sometimes, should not be an option.