Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[newwifey]

Maybe he should comment via you.  The message comes across much clearer. 

As with everything, the few ruin it for the masses.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe he should comment via you.  The message comes across much clearer. 

As with everything, the few ruin it for the masses.

I don't think I have that patience.  :nod:

 

[Strike]

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.

First of all, CS is only tax free for the person paying if IIRC and must be claimed by the recipient.  Spousal sp in not taxable to the recipient but is to the one paying.

And, if there is any reason that your 'friends' (seriously, enough with the anecdotal evidence. Unless they're specifically monitoring how those specific dollars are being spent they're really just guessing FFS) feel that perhaps the CS needs to be adjusted then maybe they should go back to the courts and ask for an adjustment.  it has been known to happen because *insert more anecdotal evidence here.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

First of all, CS is only tax free for the person paying if IIRC and must be claimed by the recipient. 

Neither is the case now.  It changed.  Anyone court orders after a certain date, no longer does the payer get a tax break on, and the payee gets the benefit of the $ and not having claim it as 'income'. 

 

[Strike]

Neither is the case now.  It changed.  Anyone court orders after a certain date, no longer does the payer get a tax break on, and the payee gets the benefit of the $ and not having claim it as 'income'.

My bad. Going off old info.

 

[newwifey]

Spousal support is still taxed for the receiver, tax deduction for the payor.

No deduction or claim for child support unless it was an order from a long time ago.....(Prior to May 1, 1997)

 

[opcougar]

At least you admitted your mistake. I am sure there are a lot more people out there that don't know family law has changed drastically over the years.

@newwifey....you are right, the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less

SS is tax deductible, but people are able to claw some of that back when they claim the kid(s) in a sole custody situation as dependents comes tax time. There is also CCTB that gets paid on the 20th of each month

My bad. Going off old info.

 

[Strike]

...the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less

Seriously, you need to stop posting...and don't ever have kids or even date anyone with them because you seem to treat them more like they are pets to be disposed of than an integral part of your life that you would protect with your whole being if it ever came to that.

And I really don't give a hoot how many examples of 'friends' you have whose exes have been treating the kids like commodities and tools for bartering a better deal.  Not saying it doesn't happen, but you're acting and posting like that's ALL that ever happens.

 

[Lumber]

@newwifey....you are right, the key is NOT to hook up with anyone with kids because they will get more out of you than you will get out of them in the end. It's like a business, business savvy types don't invest in what will yield less

It's not like a business. I'll take a page out of your book and make a wild generalization without anything at all to back it up: most people don't go into relationships because it's a good financial investment. Most peopel are actually looking for a committed relationship. If you find someone you think you have a connection with, it won't matter if they have kids or not. In fact, depending on your personality, it might even seem like a bonus.

Besides, you're recommendation is flawed. If you're just "hooking up", then the kids, CS and SS, won't be a problem. If you'd said "don't get into a serious, committed relationship with anyone with kids...", well then you can read my first paragraph. But even if you avoid all of the wonderful, beautiful women out there who have enjoyed the fortune of having children, you could still end up with kids in your life if the relationship becomes a serious one, and you decide to have children.

Seriously, you talk as if children are used by these "evil, money grabbing, gold diggers", but in reality, it's you who are using the children. You're using children as an excuse and a defence mechanism for your bitterness and cowardice.

 

[George Wallace]

Before anyone makes another post:

Blackadder1916 - post a link with the publication ban
opcougar - post a link where the ban was lifted

---Staff---

From the Report to Mod notification:

CBC story referring to publication ban: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/unmarried-quebec-couples-have-no-right-to-alimony-court-rules-1.1322347

 

[opcougar]

Finally we agree on something. Deep down, am sure you know people (friends, acquaintances and perhaps family) who have had their kids alienated from them? Why do you think most custody battles happen? That is because parental access below 40% grants the other person table CS amount . It takes 2 to make kids, but 1 will make you believe "it's their kids"  :

Seriously, you need to stop posting...and don't ever have kids or even date anyone with them because you seem to treat them more like they are pets to be disposed of than an integral part of your life that you would protect with your whole being if it ever came to that.

And I really don't give a hoot how many examples of 'friends' you have whose exes have been treating the kids like commodities and tools for bartering a better deal.  Not saying it doesn't happen, but you're acting and posting like that's ALL that ever happens.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

I think it's about time you had a hard look at your attitude and delivery. It's notable that the previous listening silence, you were on, doesn't appear to have had an effect.

You are now a member of the formal warning system.

---Staff---

 

[Sheppard619]

Hey guys,

My girlfriend moved into my house Feb of last year. We are now trying to apply for common law prior to getting posted. The problem we are running into is we have zero proof she moved in in that time frame... the earliest paper proof we can find is May 2015. When she moved into my house she kept her apartment for a few months where she kept her cats until she could re-home them (I have a large dog who is not good with cats). Also at the time she didn't change over her licenses, billing addresses etc. until we were living together a few months and knew things would work between us.
My orderly room is telling me I 100% need proof she moved in in February regardless of signing a stat dec stating she did. Is there any way around this? Thanks.

 

[Pusser]

What's the COS Date on your posting?  If it's after the earliest paper proof you have of living together, it's not an issue.  Your common-law relationship can be recognized as of May 2016 (which is only a few weeks away) and you can proceed on posting with her as your dependant.  Another option is to run down to the court house and get a quick civil marriage.  As long as you are married or in a recognized common-law relationship prior to COS Date, your partner is your dependant.

If this is not possible, what you lose in terms of your partner not being considered a dependant is not huge.  Consider:

1) if you're driving, she can still drive in the car with you.  The amount you receive in mileage is the same;

2)  Even if you have two cars, one can still be shipped at public expense (but not one that is not owned by you) and you can drive the other one;

3)  you can still take a house-hunting trip (albeit by yourself in this case); and

4)  hotels en route and for any interim lodging periods can still be claimed (generally, hotel rooms cost the same whether they are occupied by one or two people).

The biggest things you would lose out on would be:

1)  the cost of airfare for your partner should you decide to fly to your new posting;

2)  interim meals and meals while travelling for your partner (although the allowance for you alone is actually generous enough to feed both of you in many cases); and

3)  half a month's pay on your posting allowance (if you're entitled to one in the first place).

So yes, it's obviously better if your partner can be your dependant on posting, but it's not the end of the world if she isn't and it does not prevent her from moving with you.

 

[Sheppard619]

What's the COS Date on your posting?  If it's after the earliest paper proof you have of living together, it's not an issue.  Your common-law relationship can be recognized as of May 2016 (which is only a few weeks away) and you can proceed on posting with her as your dependant.  Another option is to run down to the court house and get a quick civil marriage.  As long as you are married or in a recognized common-law relationship prior to COS Date, your partner is your dependant.

If this is not possible, what you lose in terms of your partner not being considered a dependant is not huge.  Consider:

1) if you're driving, she can still drive in the car with you.  The amount you receive in mileage is the same;

2)  Even if you have two cars, one can still be shipped at public expense (but not one that is not owned by you) and you can drive the other one;

3)  you can still take a house-hunting trip (albeit by yourself in this case); and

4)  hotels en route and for any interim lodging periods can still be claimed (generally, hotel rooms cost the same whether they are occupied by one or two people).

The biggest things you would lose out on would be:

1)  the cost of airfare for your partner should you decide to fly to your new posting;

2)  interim meals and meals while travelling for your partner (although the allowance for you alone is actually generous enough to feed both of you in many cases); and

3)  half a month's pay on your posting allowance (if you're entitled to one in the first place).

So yes, it's obviously better if your partner can be your dependant on posting, but it's not the end of the world if she isn't and it does not prevent her from moving with you.

Thank you for the help.

The issue with trying to get the common law status in ASAP as I am screening for an isolated posting (that I very much want) so I need the common law status done ASAP so she can screen as well.

From my understanding if I screen solo right now, and then have the common law status changed closer to my COS it is going to screw up the screening process as she will have to screen herself very late.

 

[Pusser]

Thank you for the help.

The issue with trying to get the common law status in ASAP as I am screening for an isolated posting (that I very much want) so I need the common law status done ASAP so she can screen as well.

From my understanding if I screen solo right now, and then have the common law status changed closer to my COS it is going to screw up the screening process as she will have to screen herself very late.

Engage your chain of command and your career manager.  If you can show that your partner will be your dependant by the proposed COS Date then they should allow her to start screening as well (assuming they apply logic, common sense and reason).  Having said that, a quick trip down to the court house can solve your problem pretty quickly...

In case you're in a situation where you "don't want to commit to marriage yet," consider that once you hit the one year mark of verifiable co-habitation (i.e. sometime next month), you are common-law whether you like it or not (i.e. doesn't matter if the CF recognizes it, the courts will) and any break-up after that can end up in divorce court regardless.

 

[Sheppard619]

So you would say there is no chance of having my common law status approved for a date prior to when I have paper proof?

I have heard conflicting cases of people telling me they had their applications approved without proof.

Thanks again.

 

[BinRat55]

(assuming they apply logic, common sense and reason)

What is this sorcery you speak of? Eye of reasoning, wing of common sense... blasphemy on you Pusser!

 

[CountDC]

it is the same sorcery that makes members sign a stat dec and then provide proof these days.  Seems to defeat the purpose of the stat dec. Glad i didn't have to deal with that when I did it, pretty sure the boss would have killed anyone that tried to say our stat dec wasn't good enough.  Bit of a smack in the face too - I know you swear to this but you know, I don't believe you so I want you to prove it.

 

[Pusser]

So you would say there is no chance of having my common law status approved for a date prior to when I have paper proof?

I have heard conflicting cases of people telling me they had their applications approved without proof.

Thanks again.

since it is your CO who recognizes the common-law relationship, it is really up to him/her.  If he accepts a Stat Dec, then that is his/her prerogative.  However, the norm is that some form of written proof (e.g. utility bills with both names, joint bank account, etc).

On the mail front, it doesn't actually have to be a utility bill.  An envelope from a letter from a friend, addressed to your partner and postmarked in Feb 15 should also suffice.  All you need is some form of proof that she was living there.  The standard for that proof is pretty broad.