• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Spouses and HHTs

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Investigating for a friend:

They've finally allowed HHTs to proceed.

However, when my friend submitted his application, his CO rejected his application to include his dependents (wife and daughter) in the HHT.

He was told that as "CMP" direction, but his CO/CoC couldn't provide him with any written proof of that direction.

Has anyone heard of this? Does anyone have anything official? Does this not go against the spirit of the CANFORGEN?
 

Ralph

Member
Reaction score
7
Points
180
https://mobile.caf-fac.ca/canforgens/page.php?path=072-20_e

Serial 7
 

211RadOp

Sr. Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
DEPENDANT TRAVEL. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT MBRS PROCEED UNACCOMPANIED ON HHT/DIT TO MINIMIZE RISK OF COVID-19 EXPOSURE TO DEPENDANTS AND COMMUNITIES AT DESTINATION AND FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS WHEN RETURNING TO PLACE OF ORIGIN. WHILE HHT ENTITLEMENTS REMAIN UNCHANGED, THE REALITY IS THAT MANY LOCATIONS WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS, DAYCARE, AND DOCTORS ETC WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE PART OF AN HHT/DIT THUS REDUCING THE NEED TO HAVE FAMILY PRESENT DURING THE VISIT TO NEW LOCATION. WHILE NOT IDEAL, AND UNDERSTANDING THERE MAY BE OCCASIONS WHEN THIS WILL BE NECESSARY, IT SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION THAT DEPENDANTS TRAVEL WITH MBRS FOR HHT/DIT RELATED TO MOVES THIS APS

Does not say cannot go with the member.

DWAN Link  http://vcds.mil.ca/apps/canforgens/default-eng.asp?id=072-20&type=canforgen
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
Ralph said:
https://mobile.caf-fac.ca/canforgens/page.php?path=072-20_e

Serial 7

Thanks!

First, that doesnt say they can't. It says the entitlement remains unchanged, and although not recommended, it does not constitute direction that no spouses will be allowed on HHT.

Second, and although somewhat moot, I object to the statement in the para that says that the primary reason behind bringing family is to meet doctors, visit schools, etc. No. The primary reason I bring my wife is because if I picked a house without her she'd probably kill me, and I bring my kids because of the additional food and incidentals money :p.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
285
Points
980
Lumber said:
Thanks!

First, that doesnt say they can't. It says the entitlement remains unchanged, and although not recommended, it does not constitute direction that no spouses will be allowed on HHT.

Second, and although somewhat moot, I object to the statement in the para that says that the primary reason behind bringing family is to meet doctors, visit schools, etc. No. The primary reason I bring my wife is because if I picked a house without her she'd probably kill me, and I bring my kids because of the additional food and incidentals money :p.

All good points. 

The returns I am seeing from our L1 have restricted spouse/dependants accompanying mbrs to certain locations.  Those location almost all have some form of self-iso restriction that have either lifted it for CAF mbrs or there is a work around for CAF mbrs. Those work arounds and lifting of restrictions for mbrs unfortunately don't apply to spouses or dependants of CAF mbrs so the approval is to go unaccompanied because an L1 can't lift those requirements for non-CAF mbrs. 

That said no order given by the CoC applies to one's spouse,so if a spouse wanted to go there is nothing any L1 could do. The interesting rub will be where the mbr was approved unaccompanied but went accompanied and then attempted to claim the costs for their spouse. It may potentially trigger a number of grievances into the future so we will see
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
149
Points
710
For places requiring a self-isolation period, which there is no ability to authorize through the CFIRP, the CA is putting the member on TD.

Of course, there is no policy mechanism to do that for the spouse/kids so there's a bit of an issue there. I don't see why, through the CFIRP program, the flights can't be booked, and the HHT paid out, and everything except the 14-day isolation period is paid for by the CAF. Since you've already got a hotel room, it's not additional cost to have your spouse there. At that point it's just meals you need to pay for out of pocket for her to be there for the 14-day isolation as well, and then you can do you do your entire 19-day HHT (14 days isolation + 5 days HHT) together and the only cost out of pocket is spouse's food for 14 days. Not perfect, but like the CDS said, somethings are just going to be unlucky.

Now, despite the fact that policy-wise this should not be an issue, whether you can get people who are administering it to think abstractly enough to work it out instead of just defaulting to "no" because they don't understand, is another issue entirely...
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
149
Points
710
Lumber said:
Second, and although somewhat moot, I object to the statement in the para that says that the primary reason behind bringing family is to meet doctors, visit schools, etc. No. The primary reason I bring my wife is because if I picked a house without her she'd probably kill me, and I bring my kids because of the additional food and incidentals money :p.

I agree, having to pick out one of your largest purchases ever without your spouse there is a challenge. The CAF has an exceedingly amazing ability to replace your mother and make these kind of conclusions for you, which always seem to be in a manner that's convenient for them.

They have also concluded that they're not going to reimburse you when the airline gives you a flight credit in the event that it expires a year, because after a one-year period you'd have had annual leave and therefore had an "opportunity" to use it and so you should have used it. Anybody wanting to be reimbursed will need to prove that, for military reasons, they could not use their travel credit, and have DCBA 3 adjudicate the claim. Must be pretty ******* amazeballs to be able to have the God-like ability to be able to determine for people what they should do with their own money, what is or is not worth it for them to spend travel money on, etc.

 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
285
Points
980
ballz said:
For places requiring a self-isolation period, which there is no ability to authorize through the CFIRP, the CA is putting the member on TD.

Of course, there is no policy mechanism to do that for the spouse/kids so there's a bit of an issue there. I don't see why, through the CFIRP program, the flights can't be booked, and the HHT paid out, and everything except the 14-day isolation period is paid for by the CAF. Since you've already got a hotel room, it's not additional cost to have your spouse there. At that point it's just meals you need to pay for out of pocket for her to be there for the 14-day isolation as well, and then you can do you do your entire 19-day HHT (14 days isolation + 5 days HHT) together and the only cost out of pocket is spouse's food for 14 days. Not perfect, but like the CDS said, somethings are just going to be unlucky.

Now, despite the fact that policy-wise this should not be an issue, whether you can get people who are administering it to think abstractly enough to work it out instead of just defaulting to "no" because they don't understand, is another issue entirely...

Yea tracking the TD aspect and I agree with you wrt ingenuity in application.  Unfortunately we both know that won't be the case
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
442
Points
880
Nova Scotia lifted the self-isolation requirements for members and spouses, but restrict the travel to only house hunting (no visiting friends, no day trips, etc).
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
28
Points
330
You know, the "I can't buy a house without my spouse by my side" argument is getting pretty flimsy these days. Yes, its the largest financial decision couples make together. But guess what, 9 times out of 10, you've made the decision to buy something, so that financial decision has already been made. Most couples have already whittled down the list of house they want to see by the time they arrive at location, so they already know most of what they need to about the houses they are physically going to look at (this is even more true given many restrictions in place by realtors). Your spouse can also literally see everything you do on a home visit, including the neighbourhood, through the wonders of todays technology.

It sounds like the real issue, from where I'm standing, is a lack of trust in many relationships. Or maybe to paraphrase Lumber; "what about all that cash I'm going to lose out on by leaving the wife and kids at home".

Now there are exceptions to this, I will admit. If I'm buying my forever home, knowing that I have to put up with it for more that 2-5 years, I'd probably want to bring the spouse along, because then we're making a home, not just buying a house.

And before anyone asks what do I know about it, two postings ago, I did the HHT on my own. I managed to find a house that my family loved for the 3 year posting, all with the help of a good realtor and input from my spouse, 8 time zones away. 
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
442
Points
880
We bought our current house through Skype with a realtor on-location.  We’re satisfied with it.  A lot of people I know are buying houses virtually this year.  I think most people are finding excuses to bring their family to benefit monetarily.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
I'm sick of some CO's making decisions based on their own personal opinion.  If what came out says "recommended' then that should be it.  It should then be up to the mbr and spouse to make the decision.  The CAF needs to quit playing god and get over their need to try to control everything when there is no need for it.  They need to start treating people like adults.  There's a reason we have a retention problem.


 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
89
Points
330
captloadie said:
You know, the "I can't buy a house without my spouse by my side" argument is getting pretty flimsy these days. Yes, its the largest financial decision couples make together. But guess what, 9 times out of 10, you've made the decision to buy something, so that financial decision has already been made.

While the financial decision has been made, finding something you like together is something completely different. Don't know how many houses we thought were 'this is the one' when seeing online and after walking in immediately doing a 180. There are so many other variables then just the house, it's the neighbourhood and location that plays a role too. Google street-view doesn't show you everything and I don't trust realtors to be 100% forthcoming on whether or not the neighbourhood is scuzzy. I think that the spouse has every right to see, in person, not just the house you are buying, but also the base and town that you are dragging her/him to for however many years. With today's tech, like you said, you already have your shortlist of properties and a week long HHT is kinda ridiculous and needs to be shortened. Two-three days at location max is all that should be allowed.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,601
Points
890
stellarpanther said:
I'm sick of some CO's making decisions based on their own personal opinion.  If what came out says "recommended' then that should be it.  It should then be up to the mbr and spouse to make the decision.  The CAF needs to quit playing god and get over their need to try to control everything when there is no need for it.  They need to start treating people like adults.  There's a reason we have a retention problem.

At 7% attrition that means the average Regular Force member remains for 14 years.  Since the most significant traditional exit point is the end of the initial engagement (5-9 years, depending on entry plan) that means that a significant plurality (if not majority) of CAF Reg F members remain until pensionable.

How, exactly, does that constitute a retention problem?

(Now, arguing that the wrong people leave and the wrong people stay is another discussion, also worth having...)
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
285
Points
980
stellarpanther said:
I'm sick of some CO's making decisions based on their own personal opinion.  If what came out says "recommended' then that should be it.  It should then be up to the mbr and spouse to make the decision.  The CAF needs to quit playing god and get over their need to try to control everything when there is no need for it.  They need to start treating people like adults.  There's a reason we have a retention problem.

I will state up front that my personal opinion is that I agree that it should be up to the mbr and their family to choose.  I also don't expect the CAF to fix the ramifications of my adults decisions unlike many others.

For the most part the people making the accompanied/unaccompanied decisions are not COs. CO's only have approval authority for intra-provincial HHTs and self iso is generally only for those that are entering a province not moving internally.  At the end of the day in this case the CAF can only be be resp for CAF mbrs in these unprecedented times hence the decision to potentially limit a HHT/DIT to the mbr only.

I imagine the that decision was not made lightly. Can you imagine the mewling that would arise if the CAF said go for it and a spouse/child contracted COVID and died/got seriously ill. The CAF would somehow be at fault for that families adult decision.

At the end of the day I tend to agree that we need to get out of the business of adulting for people in many areas but in this case I don't see much maneuver space for the CAF as regardless of what they do they will be lambasted for their decision.  One set of mewls internal and the other external).  The lesser of the two mewlings is the restriction they put in place. 

stellarpanther said:
There's a reason we have a retention problem.


People keep saying that but as Dapaterson pointed out the stats don't support that argument. Much like many things people post, you are just bandying about words without actually stats to back up the statement.
 

 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
MJP said:
People keep saying that but as Dapaterson pointed out the stats don't support that argument. Much like many things people post, you are just bandying about words without actually stats to back up the statement.

I don't have stats but I'm sure they exist somewhere.  All I know is that a lot of release sections are saying that there has been a noticeable increase in release applications especially at the Jnr rank level.  Several bases have been having workshops to discuss the reasons.  Ottawa had one last year and I heard from other people that Winnipeg and North Bay had one last year as well with the Wing CWO.
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
6
Points
530
MJP said:
...
For the most part the people making the accompanied/unaccompanied decisions are not COs. CO's only have approval authority for intra-provincial HHTs and self iso is generally only for those that are entering a province not moving internally. 
...
And that's the absolutely ludicrous part of this policy. A CO in Wainwright can authorize an annual leave pass for one of their pers to get on a plane to Montreal with a transfer of planes in TO, with the province having 608 active cases per 100,000 pers, yet they can't authorize an HHT/DIT to Dundurn, SK, which is a 3.5 hour drive down the road in a province that has 55 cases per 100,000 for...reasons?

However, my biggest issue with the restriction on family travel is I have no doubt that next time the policy is reviewed, the "success" of the 2020 APS and unaccompanied HHT/DITs is going to be used against us and yet another of our move entitlements is going to be taken away or shifted into our Personal/Custom envelopes.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
424
Points
1,010
Quirky said:
While the financial decision has been made, finding something you like together is something completely different. Don't know how many houses we thought were 'this is the one' when seeing online and after walking in immediately doing a 180. There are so many other variables then just the house, it's the neighbourhood and location that plays a role too. Google street-view doesn't show you everything and I don't trust realtors to be 100% forthcoming on whether or not the neighbourhood is scuzzy. I think that the spouse has every right to see, in person, not just the house you are buying, but also the base and town that you are dragging her/him to for however many years. With today's tech, like you said, you already have your shortlist of properties and a week long HHT is kinda ridiculous and needs to be shortened. Two-three days at location max is all that should be allowed.

I agree; sometimes it just doesn't feel like home.  :dunno:  It's where you have to spend at least a few years laying your head, and it's your money, so if they think that kind of thing going sideways because only half the partnership made the decision won't have long term repercussions they might be living alone. Online buys together might be fine if you have lived there before and know the town, but would be pretty nervous to do that if I hadn't been there before.

Totally disagree with the shorter HHT though; that doesn't leave enough time for basics like a home inspection and just the bids going back and forth can take a few days even if you happen to get it right on day one. That's pretty rare, and can be a roll of the dice with a lot of other factors totally out of your control whether things happen to be still available the week you show up. We're getting priced out of some of the big markets, especially if you are younger and don't have a lot of value built up in something you bought a decade ago.  Not unusual for affordable places to go for above asking now, which is nuts when you think about it, and that usually means they are sold in a ludicrously short amount of time, sometimes with zero conditions. You can spend a month looking at MLS and have a list that was up to date when you got to the airport be useless when you land.
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
276
Points
910
Lumber said:
The primary reason I bring my wife is because if I picked a house without her she'd probably kill me, and I bring my kids because of the additional food and incidentals money :p.

And this kind of approach is probably what led to door to door moves
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
285
Points
980
garb811 said:
And that's the absolutely ludicrous part of this policy. A CO in Wainwright can authorize an annual leave pass for one of their pers to get on a plane to Montreal with a transfer of planes in TO, with the province having 608 active cases per 100,000 pers, yet they can't authorize an HHT/DIT to Dundurn, SK, which is a 3.5 hour drive down the road in a province that has 55 cases per 100,000 for...reasons?

It is a fair point and I agree. I am sure at some point in the process they had to make a tear line for CO vs L1 and they went with the policy they did.  Like most policies for an org our size it just can't be adaptive enough for every situation. 
 
Top