Topic: Tough situation - Girlfriend Pregnant - Common-Law ?

[beach_bum]

If he was able to get a Q that had three bedrooms isnt he entitled at his own expense to move her in there with him?  I mean technically at some point the girl has to be able to move in or there would never be common law reltionships once you joined the forces.  As I said before be prepared to pay for the move yourself if it is approved.

Not if it's designated as a SQ.  People in the forces do become common-law living in off-base housing, not in single quarters.

[Shadow Cat]

I am talking about getting a Q in that response.  If and if he can get a Q he should be entitled to move who he wants in at his own expense, shouldnt he?

[beach_bum]

I was also referring to Qs that are designated as single quarters.

[Shadow Cat]

Oh.  Are those the apartments that you get a bigger space but have to share a washroom still?

[beach_bum]

If you read armyverns post, she explains this as well.  They are houses that are allocated as enhanced single quarters. 

[ArmyVern]

I am talking about getting a Q in that response.  If and if he can get a Q he should be entitled to move who he wants in at his own expense, shouldnt he?

Shadowcat:

There are PMQs (for married people) and there are those PMQs that are designated as ESQs (Enhanced Single's Quarters) on some Bases.

ESQs are available on some bases due to lack of "families" or "married couples" to move into them. ESQs are the exact same thing as PMQs (except that they are designated for "single" personnel). There may be an ESQ located right beside a PMQ.

It is cheaper in the long run to have a single pers move into an empty PMQ and pay the heating costs than to leave an abundance of 'empty/famliless' PMQs for which the Crown ultimately foots the bill to heat. And, on some bases 2 or 3 single military pers move into one PMQ which has been designated as an ESQ (like here in Gagetown).

Regardless, a PMQ that is being occupied by a single person becomes a designated "ESQ" and the same rules apply as that of the single person living in the more traditional on-base "shacks/singles quarters." You can not move your boyfriend or girlfriend into the shacks...nor can you move them into your ESQ. So it'd be pretty hard to claim common-law status by moving an unauthorized person into your shacks and then trying to claim that the enhanced singles quarters address was their official residence for common-law purposes.

[Shadow Cat]

So out of curiosity as I am kinda new to all of this...how does one become common-law while living in military housing?  I mean there must be a way.  How does one do it?

[geo]

you'd have to provide some sort of evidence that you've been together for more than a year.... and voila!

[Steve]

A solid way to do it is to collect bills you paid of some nature or mail, indicating and proving you have been with your boyfriend in the same residence (or with him if there are more) for at least 6 months, and take it to whatever clerk is applicable to him to sign the necessary paperwork. It can sometimes take a while so don't hold your breath.

[ArmyVern]

So out of curiosity as I am kinda new to all of this...how does one become common-law while living in military housing?  I mean there must be a way.  How does one do it?

That is exactly it...one can not become common-law while they live in designated "Single" military housing as, legally, they can not have their boyfriend/girlfriend living with them. To do this they must get an apartment/house on the civy side of the fence (not a military single quarter).

The other way to become entitled to PMQs is to get married. Or the date the child is born (because on that day the military member legally and technically does have a dependant - his/her child-).

[PteMacPooie]

Check out para 5.

CFAO 19-41 -- COMMON-LAW RELATIONSHIPS



PURPOSE
1.     This order amplifies  QR&O 1.075 insofar as it relates to the
recognition of common-law relationships by the Canadian Forces (CF).

RECOGNITION
2.     The criteria for the recognition of marital relationships by the CF
are set out in  QR&O 1.075. That regulation states, in part:
     "(1) For the purposes of Volumes I and III of QR&O, an officer or
          non-commissioned member is considered to be married to a person
          only if the member and the person

          (a)  have gone through a form of marriage recognizable under
               Canadian Law as establishing a legal marriage; or

          (b)  are living in a common-law relationship recognized pursuant
               to paragraph (2) of this article."

3.     The conditions for recognition by the CF of a common-law relationship,
as set out in  QR&O 1.075(2), are as follows:

     "(2) A commanding officer may, upon application by a member in the
          manner prescribed in orders issued by the Chief of the Defence
          Staff, recognize the member's common-law relationship where the
          member establishes by affidavit or statutory declaration signed
          by both persons in the relationship that they:

          (a)  are of opposite sexes;

          (b)  are not prevented by law, for any reason other than one or
               both of them being legally married, from entering into a
               legal marriage in Canada;

          (c)  have resided together as husband and wife continuously for
               at least one year immediately preceding the application or,
               if a child has been born to them, are residing together as
               husband and wife with the child;

          (d)  undertake to hold each other out as husband and wife; and

          (e)  are authorized by law to reside in Canada on a permanent
               basis."

4.     To comply with the phrase "not prevented by law" in subparagraph
(2)(b) of  QR&O 1.075 the parties to the relationship must:

     a.   be of sufficient age to marry without consent in the province or
          territory in which the application is made (18 years outside of
          Canada), or have obtained the necessary consent of a parent or
          guardian;

     b.   have sufficient mental capacity to lawfully consent to the
          relationship; and

     c.   not be related to each other to a degree that would preclude a
          valid marriage under the law of the province in which they are
          residing (Ontario law if outside Canada).

5.     The continuous period of at least one year referred to in subparagraph
(2)(c) of  QR&O 1.075 may include periods of involuntary separation for
such reasons as temporary duty, attached posting or unaccompanied posting
(eg, a six-month UN tour). However, the couple must have resided together
as husband and wife during the remainder of the one-year period .

[Roy Harding]

Just a quick word from an old curmudgeon here - then I'll leave the thread.

If you are in a long-term relationship (IE - long enough to be considered common-law by the military - 1 year), and you are committed to that relationship, why not get married??  The legal effect is the same as common-law.

I find the whole idea of "declaring common-law status" for the sole purpose of obtaining military housing repugnant, shallow, and rife with the potential for future problems in the relationship.

As stated in the first sentence - I'm an old curmudgeon and therefore, from your point of view, probably don't "understand" modern relationships - on the other hand, maybe I'm right.  Your call.

Good luck to you.

[Allan Luomala]

5.     The continuous period of at least one year referred to in subparagraph
(2)(c) of  QR&O 1.075 may include periods of involuntary separation for
such reasons as temporary duty, attached posting or unaccompanied posting
(eg, a six-month UN tour). However, the couple must have resided together
as husband and wife during the remainder of the one-year period .

I'm not a lawyer (not even of the barrack block variety), but this looks intended to covers per already in a unit residing at their home base, not somebody undergoing basic trg/QL3/etc. 

I had a soldier in my troop go through the common-law status business, and while it didn't seem "above board" to me (he and his missus were living in his parents house), that still counted as living together. From the sounds of what you had defined, I would say that you are not in a situation where the CF will do much for you, and I would be hesitant to use someone's "I heard of a guy......" or "somebody on Army.ca told me that I was entitled to....." as anything solid. And resist the temptation to lie, and say that you were living together for a year (many people have done so): you would at that point be considered common-law (i.e equiv to marriage) and also subject to disciplinary action WHEN "they" find out ("they" always seem to find out....)

Good luck, and 6 months goes by pretty quick (especially when you get avoid all the bouts of her morning sickness and late night cravings  )

Al

[geo]

if you live in Quebec and are living together for 12 months.... you're common law and in the eyes of the Provincial gov't...... YOU"RE MARRIED! might as well take care of the paperwork

[Tarutig]

Shadowcat:

There are PMQs (for married people) and there are those PMQs that are designated as ESQs (Enhanced Single's Quarters) on some Bases.

ESQs are available on some bases due to lack of "families" or "married couples" to move into them. ESQs are the exact same thing as PMQs (except that they are designated for "single" personnel). There may be an ESQ located right beside a PMQ.

It is cheaper in the long run to have a single pers move into an empty PMQ and pay the heating costs than to leave an abundance of 'empty/famliless' PMQs for which the Crown ultimately foots the bill to heat. And, on some bases 2 or 3 single military pers move into one PMQ which has been designated as an ESQ (like here in Gagetown).

Regardless, a PMQ that is being occupied by a single person becomes a designated "ESQ" and the same rules apply as that of the single person living in the more traditional on-base "shacks/singles quarters." You can not move your boyfriend or girlfriend into the shacks...nor can you move them into your ESQ. So it'd be pretty hard to claim common-law status by moving an unauthorized person into your shacks and then trying to claim that the enhanced singles quarters address was their official residence for common-law purposes.

In Kingston, our neighbour was single and had his girlfriend that he met a couple months before , move in.  He just asked for permission to have her move into the Q and it was granted.

On another note.... an easy way to just get a Q.... Elope! 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So you KNOW HE ASKED AND GOT PERMISSION, or he TOLD you he asked and got permission?


If not you could be giving out the wrong impression to these young uns....

[WCST]

First of all, congrats on having a baby. Now you both need to confirm it and decide what you're going to do from here.

I'm not going to tell you to get married. If you want to stay common-law, then that's what's right for you at this time. I AM going to tell you that:

Your girlfriend will survive the 6 months away (I thought basic was much shorter than this, but it's been a while since I took it  ) from you. Morning sickness or not  , as long as she can talk to you at least every second day (invest in a phone card), things will work out. Communication goes a long way to making any relationship last. My husband was at sea for 6 months while I was at home with a newborn. Believe me, I wish he'd have been gone during my pregnancy and not after I had the baby.

Once you know where you're going to be for your QL3 trg (I'm assuming it's either Halifax or Esquimalt based on your user name), then you can ask for help from your Chain of Comd in assisting you with getting your g/f to move closer to you if that's what you both decide. If you make her your NOK, then you're entitled to LTA and reverse LTA to go see her (or she you) once a year. Perhaps you can even get a SISIP loan to bring her out and set her up in an apartment until you're allowed to claim common-law or move off base.

Contacting the recruiting centre is also a good suggestion, however remember their bottom line - they want recruits and many places will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get you to sign. Ask them to show you the policies that they're quoting you.

Good luck with whatever you chose.

M

[NavyShooter]

Gidday,

Firstoff, a baby is usually not a "problem" as such...they grow into that status later in life :-)  so perhaps Congratulations are in order first.

The timing may not be the best for the three of you, but if you're heading off shortly, you'll get most of your initial training done, and may be posted to a new base before the young'un pops out.

I was away for 2/3 of my wife's last pregnancy, and the little guy popped out fine last month.  Now I'm at sea again.

There's some good stuff in this thread regarding what you can do for quarters, and such on base. 

I'll suggest seeing a doc and getting it confirmed.

I'll suggest that whatever decision you and your significant other make should be done together. 

I'll suggest getting ahold of the recruiters and bringng them into the loop.

What follows that is based on what you and she decide, and then what the recruiters are able to help you with.  It's not so bad as you think.  I don't know what the recruits earn nowadays, but I know for sure they earn a lot more than the $1225 a month I got when I was in basic.  Once you're done basic, you're making the better part of $30K or so....a liveable wage. 

So, congrats to you, and I hope your dilemna isn't keeping you up too many nights.  The baby will later :-) 

NavyShooter

[big bad john (John Hill)]

NavyShooter good post, good advice!

[MuffinMix]

If you are in a long-term relationship (IE - long enough to be considered common-law by the military - 1 year), and you are committed to that relationship, why not get married??  The legal effect is the same as common-law.

Yes, and you get much better presents!   

But... I did the common-law non-sense for the benefits about 6 months before we actually married.