New Random Answers to Random Search Terms

I haven't done a Random Answers post for awhile, but this week's search terms were inspiring. Click on the tag at the end of this article to read older posts.

Separation

>> remarrying after common law separation

Go right ahead and get married. Common-law couples aren't legally married, and you don't need to get a divorce before entering into a new long term relationship or getting married.

Separation Agreements

>> who can witness the signing of a separation agreement

Anyone who is 19 or older and sane, and not the other party to the agreement.

>> how many copies of the separation agreement are required in bc

Only one original copy is absolutely necessary, however it's sometimes helpful to have additional copies in case you need to file the agreement in court for enforcement purposes. Normally, each party would have one original copy and each lawyer would have one original copy, for a total of four copies. I usually make an extra original copy so that I can file one in court and still have an original copy for my records, making a total of five copies.

>> difference between separation agreement and divorce

A separation agreement is a contract recording the settlement of the issues arising when a relationship breaks down. A divorce is a court order legally terminating a marriage. You must get an order to be divorced, you can't be divorced by a separation agreement.

Divorce

>> why is there a 31 day waiting period in a divorce case

This search term is about the 31 delay between the date the court makes a divorce order and the date the divorce order takes effect. The delay is required in order to allow the appeal period to expire before the couple are actually divorced. If there is an urgent reason for the divorce to take effect earlier than the end of the appeal period, the court making the divorce order can specify that it will take effect sooner. The court may require both spouses to execute Certificates of No Appeal.

>> does having sex with the person you just divorced make the divorce void

Nope. Go for it.

Litigation

>> what happens if you respond late to a family claim in bc supreme court

In theory, someone who doesn't reply to a Notice of Family Claim within the 30 day period prescribed by Rule 4-3(1) of the Supreme Court Family Rules is not a "respondent" as defined by Rule 1-1(1) and isn't entitled to notice of any further step in the case, including the trial. Although this sounds pretty Draconian, the court will allow a respondent to file a Response to Family Claim late and will usually allow an application to set aside a default judgment as long as the respondent had a good reason for not responding.

>> can judges make rulings at provincial court case conference

Yes. Under Rule 7(4) of the Provincial Court (Family) Rules, the judge hearing a Family Case Conference can (b) decide any issues that do not require evidence, (f) make an order to which all of the parties consent and (n) make any other order or give any direction that the judge considers appropriate. The court will not usually make any orders except procedural orders without the parties' agreement.

>> can a cpl be registered in bc provincial court

No, but they can't be registered in the Supreme Court either. Certificates of Pending Litigation are registered with the BC Land Title and Survey Authority.

New Random Answers to Random Search Terms

I am able to review the search terms that lead people to my website. Every now and then, a search term is particularly unusual or suggests an answer that doesn't, and perhaps shouldn't, appear in the website. In this irregular feature, I will randomly reply to these search terms. New Random Answers will reappear at unpredictable intervals.

These search terms are all about marriage and divorce.

(Remember, the law that's being applied here is the law of British Columbia, Canada, and the laws of one jurisdiction are often very different from the laws of the next.)

>> consequences of getting remarried without getting divorced

This one's easy enough: your new marriage won't be valid.

Without a divorce, any other marriage is technically bigamous under the Criminal Code yet also void under the common law.
>> how many years after separation are you considered divorced

Never. Until you get that divorce order you're still married. No marriage is over until a court has made a divorce order, no matter how much time has passed since the spouses separated.

>> is it ungodly to attend a person's third marriage

I don't normally pronounce on religious issues, but this search term was too hard to pass up. If it is ungodly, perhaps you need to find a new religion if you're really prepared to put your religious scruples above your loyalty to a friend and a celebration of his or her happiness.
>> use of the divorce act for common law relationships canada
Also easy: none.

The federal Divorce Act only applies to people who are married to each other or who used to be married to each other. Unmarried couples, including couples who qualify as common-law, only have the provincial Family Relations Act and a few other laws to rely on in resolving the issues arising from their separation.
>> common law marriage divorce needed to end relationship

Common-law couples are not married; there is no such thing as a common-law marriage.

All "common-law" status means is that a couple qualify as "spouses" within the meaning of a particular law. Some laws, like the Family Relations Act and many other provincial laws, define a spouse as someone who is married or someone who has lived in a "marriage-like relationship" with another person for at least two years. Other laws have different definitions of spouse. Most federal laws, for example, only require that the couple have lived together for one year, while laws about welfare eligibility require an even briefer period of cohabitation.

Since common-law couples aren't married, there's no need for them to get a divorce to formally end their relationships. A common-law relationship is over when the couple separates. There's no magic to it, nor any need for a court order.

New Random Answers to Random Search Terms

I am able to review the search terms that lead people to my website. Every now and then, a search term is particularly unusual or suggests an answer that doesn't, and perhaps shouldn't, appear in the website. In this irregular feature, I will randomly reply to these search terms. New Random Answers will reappear at unpredictable intervals.

(Remember, the law that's being applied here is the law of British Columbia, Canada, and the laws of one jurisdiction are often very different from the laws of the next.)

>> paying for university after separation

>> child support college special expenses

>> do I still pay child support if the child is at university in another town

These questions all deal with one of the more difficult issues in family law, the payment of child support and special expenses for adult children who are studying at university or college.

The law behind this issue is simple. The Divorce Act and the Family Relations Act say that child support is payable for all kids under the age of majority, and for kids older than the age of majority of they are "unable to withdraw from the charge" of their parents. "Unable to withdraw" usually means that the child is unable to support him- or herself because of illness or disability, or because the child is engaged in post-secondary studies.

On top of the base payment of child support, parents are often also required to pay towards the cost of the children's "special and/or extraordinary expenses." Where an expense qualifies as a special expense under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, both parents must contribute to paying the expense, and they contribute in proportion to their incomes. University and college costs almost always qualify as a special expense.

Here's where it can get a bit complicated.

Child Support

Normally, the table amount of child support is what gets paid for the support of an adult child.

Despite this, the court has the discretion to order that a different amount of child support should be paid, under s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, if there is some objective reason why a different amount should be paid. In Hickman v. Hickman (2003 BCSC 116), the court talked about this issue at length and said that good objective reasons might include income from things like RESPs, scholarships, student loans, trust funds or inheritances, or disability payments. Whether the court will allow an exception to the tables will always depend on the circumstances of the case.

The person who receives the child support payments is usually the same person who has received them all along, the other parent. This can sometimes seem unfair, especially when the child is going to school in another city and lives in that city.

It is possible for a parent to pay child support directly to an adult child. This usally happens where the parents agree such an arrangement is appropriate; the court rarely makes orders to this effect. In general, the court will require that child support be paid to a parent as long as that parent maintains a room in his or her home for the child and the child stays there from time to time during school holidays.

Special Expenses

There are two conflicting lines of cases on the circumstances in which parents must pay the costs of post-secondary education and which costs the parents must cover.

The strict line of cases say this: post-secondary expenses should only be paid if the child is enrolled in a full-time course of study, and even then the course of study must be targetted to employment (unlike philosophy, for example my undergraduate focus).

The less uptight line of cases make post-secondary expenses payable whenever the child is enrolled in post-secondary studies, regardless of what the child is studying. Under these cases, children can drop out and return to school, or take a part-time course load or switch majors every year, and still have their expenses covered.

The costs that qualify as special expenses under the strict line of cases are limited to tuition fees, student fees and textbook costs. Other expenses may qualify under the less uptight line of cases, including for things such as residence, meal plans and the like.

The amount of the special expenses which the parents must contribute to is the net cost of these expenses, after all contributions from other sources have been applied to reduce the over all cost, such as student loans, scholarships, bursaries, fellowships, awards, grants and the like. Under the strict line of cases, children have been required to contribute earnings from their summer employment to these costs, obtain student loans, and provide proof that all available scholarships and grants have been applied for.

Additional information about child support and children's expenses, including a child support calculator and a special expenses calculator, can be found at www.bcfamilylawresource.com.

New Random Answers to Random Search Terms

I am able to review the search terms that lead people to my website. Every now and then, a search term is particularly unusual or suggests an answer that doesn't, and perhaps shouldn't, appear in the website. In this irregular feature, I will randomly reply to these search terms. New Random Answers will reappear at unpredictable intervals.

(Remember, the law that's being applied here is the law of British Columbia, Canada, and the laws of one jurisdiction are often very different from the laws of the next.)

>> is it adultery if you are separated

>> I have been charged with adultery now what BC law

>> dating allowed during marriage separation

These are among the most common search terms that lead people to my website. Lots of people, it appears, are worried about the legal status of their marriage and the consequences of new relationships.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. Adultery is not a criminal offence in Canada, and it's nothing you can be criminally "charged" for. What this user probably means is that his or her spouse claimed adultery as a ground of divorce in a divorce action. All right, so what does that mean?

Under the federal Divorce Act, there are three reasons why the court can make a divorce order: the couple have been separated for more than one year, one of spouses has committed adultery, or one spouse has treated the other with such cruelty that the marriage can't continue. Our system of divorce is also "no fault," which means that the reason for the divorce claim has no impact on how the court will deal with a support claim, the division of assets or the children's parenting arrangements. In other words, the reason for the divorce should have no impact on how the divorce unfolds, whether that reason is adultery or something else.

The definition of adultery is pretty broad. Essentially, it means having sex with someone other than your spouse, providing your spouse hasn't forgiven you for it. Technically, a new relationship after separation could count as adultery, but in general most people will claim a divorce for the reason that caused their separation nor for whatever may have happened after they separated.

Yes, it is technically adultery after you've separated, but so what? Since the court isn't allowed to handle your divorce any differently whether the divorce is based on separation or adultery, there shouldn't be any negative consequences in your divorce action, and adultery certainly doesn't attract any criminal sanctions. As a result, yes, dating is allowed after separation.

Best of Random Answers

And now, more of my personal favourites from "Random Answers to Random Search Terms."

>> divorce for lack of sex

Unfortunately for some, a lack of sex in a marriage isn't a ground of divorce under the Divorce Act. If might be a reason for a divorce, but it's not a legal ground to end a marriage.

A lot of people think a marriage can be annulled because the marriage wasn't consummated. Not so. The case law on this subject says that simply not having had sex is not enough... one of the spouses must actually be unable to have sex, either because of a physical condition or a psychological condition.

Now, whether the marriage was consummated or not, or it's simply a matter of the couple's love life drying up, you can still get a divorce, if that's what you think would help. The Divorce Act recognizes three grounds of divorce:

1. separation for a period of not less than one year;
2. one party's adultery during the marriage; and,
3. mental or physical cruelty inflicted on one spouse by the other.

If a lack of sex has ended your marriage, then what you're probably looking for is a divorce based on separation, and that means you'll have to announce to your spouse that things are over and wait for a year to pass. In a case like this, the lack of sex might be the reason why the marriage has broken down, but the legal ground of divorce will be separation.

>> deducting clothes from child support

Short answer: no.

A person paying child support is not entitled to make deductions from the amount of support paid to account for the expenses the payor incurs on behalf of a child. The only expenses both parents must contribute to are expenses that qualify as "special expenses" within the meaning of s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, and those expenses are paid on top of the base amount of child support.

>> canada law bastard children

Illegitimate children, that is, children born of unmarried parents, used be at a disadvantage under the law. They had no right to use their fathers' names, they had no right of inheritance, and the father had no duty to support them. Not anymore.

Today in British Columbia, and indeed for the last several decades, there is no difference in status between children born of married parents and children born of unmarried children. None. Regardless of the circumstances of their birth, all children have the same right to support and use the name they chose. By the same token, the rights and obligations a parent has toward his or her child has nothing to do at all with the nature of the relationship he or she had with the other parent.

I'll post more favourites from the past and new Random Answers at irregular and unpredictable intervals.

Best of Random Answers

Long-term users of my website will recall the surprisingly popular feature "Random Answers to Random Search Terms" which disappeared during the website's recent renovations. Random Answers had it origins in the odd, and sometimes downright bizarre, search terms which somehow managed to find my website and raised questions that I sometimes decided to answer. Here are a selection of some of my personal favourites.

>> how to get caught marrying during divorce waiting period
>> how soon after the divorce can you remarry
>> is divorce morally wrong

These seemed related, so I thought I'd answer them all at once.

Canadian divorce orders take effect thirty days after the date they are pronounced. (The delay is to allow the period in which the order can be appealed to expire.) Once the order takes effect, you can remarry.

If you want to get caught remarrying inside the appeal period - which seems like a bad idea to me — tell the judge who made the divorce order. Otherwise the odds are very good you won't get caught.

Neither the courts nor the Vital Statistics Agency polices divorce orders to make sure no one remarries within the appeal period. In fact, the Vital Statistics Agency won't even check to make sure you're not already married to someone else when they issue you your marriage licence.

To be blunt, the only person who might care that you've remarried within the appeal period is your new spouse, since your marriage to him or her is technically void.

Is divorce immoral? The Pope and I take differing views on this, and he's stopped returning my calls. Most religions, even the orthodox variety, condone divorce. Divorce is discussed with approval in the Koran, Jews can get a divorce through a special rabbinical tribunal, and most Christian faiths are all over separation and divorce, except for the focus-on-the-family evangelical types and hardcore Catholics, and I respect their views on the matter as well.

At the end of the day, regardless of your religious persuasion, comes the blistering truth: is it moral to remain trapped in a loveless relationship until the day you die, forsaking any chance of finding happiness and self-actualization, all for the sake of antiquated notions about the sanctity of marriage that were developed at a time when most people died before their 35th birthday?

>> scool problm in children in divorce family

Frankly, I'm not surprised.

Seriously, though, separation is often as traumatic for children as it is for their parents. Younger children generally do not understand what is happening, and their anxiety at home often shows up at school and reflects in their homework.

Children react particularly poorly when they are exposed to the conflict between the parents, when the parents use them as pawns in their own battles, and where the parents openly fight in front of the children. Children will feel especially anxious when no one bothers to explain to them what's going on, and will sometimes make up their own stories about why the parents no longer live together, including the belief that the break up is their fault. As you can imagine, stories like these are not particularly healthy and can seriously damage a child's self-esteem.

What can you do about this? Here are some ideas:

• The children must be told, by both parents, that each parent still loves the children and will always love the children.
• The children must not be made to feel bad for loving or missing the other parent and saying so.
• The children should be told that the separation is not their fault, and perhaps that the separation is a problem between the parents and isn't about the children.
• Each parent must maintain a positive a nurturing home for the children, and make their time with the children as "normal" as possible. That includes doing homework and talking about the children's days at school, and everything else the parents used to do with the children when they were together.
• The children must not be used to carry messages between the parents' homes, unless the messages are written down.
• The children should not be grilled about what they've done with the other parent. "Did you have a nice time?" should do it.
• The parents must not blame the other parent to the children. Each parent should make a point of speaking positively about the other parent to the children.

I suppose there's really no guaranteed solution or a solution that's particularly easy. Parenting after separation is hard work, but everything that can be done to make the children feel safe, stable and loved should be done and must be done. Even if it means choking on your pride.

>> what are the pros and cons of arranged marriages

Wow, where to begin.

Arranged marriages are fairly common in certain Asian, East Asian and African traditional cultures. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but the same cultures generally see women as inherently inferior to men and wives are usually subjugated to their husbands' wishes and authority.

One would expect these charmingly antique but very sexist values to attach to contemporary arranged marriages, perhaps not between the couple themselves but definitely to the extended families' expectations of the marriage and the wife's role in the marriage.

Arranged marriages also recall a lot of old western attitudes to marriage. Prior to, say, the 20th century, marriage was a financial endeavour. Wives sacrificed their property and their ability to conduct business independent of their husbands in exchange for a legal entitlement to be supported by their husbands. Husbands, on the other hand, took their wives' property and earnings, and received the benefits of a full-time nanny, cook, housekeeper and womb, in exchange for an obligation to provide their wives with often paltry "necessities of life."

Returning to the search term, then, I suppose that the biggest "cons" have to do with the notion of choice and the ability to marry for love rather than for a social or cultural obligation.

It really all depends on how you see marriage. If you don't see marriage as that sort of social obligation, but see it as freely choosing to enter into a life-long partnership with someone you love and respect, then an arranged marriage probably isn't the right plan. Hoping to "learn to love" an obligatory spouse is really rather optimistic, and the marriage comes with no guarantees at all.

To summarize the "cons" of arranged marriages, then:

• new spouse may be unbearable and have disgusting personal habits that you don't know about
• spouse's extended family may be similarly loathsome
• spouse's family will have traditional expectations of your role in the marriage
• being stuck with the new spouse, and his or her family members, forever (theoretically at least)
• spouse's commitment to the marriage will likely be based on traditional values rather than on love and respect
• increased likelihood of disrespect, and therefore increased likelihood of emotional, verbal and physical abuse
• absence of choice in selecting new spouse

I'll post more favourites from the past and new Random Answers at irregular and unpredictable intervals.