Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[BeyondTheNow]

Wasn't sure if this would be the right area for this. If not, I do apologize. Anyway, I am waiting to be merit listed and my spouse and son are considering moving to her parents place for the the time frame that I am in training. Will the CF still help out with the move or will they go against it because she had to live elsewhere for temporary means?

Make sure you get all this sorted out before you head on course. From personal experience, it's just easier. Yes, you can request to sit down with a clerk during course, as there are admin periods and such. But ideally, you'd like to take care of loose ends, change of info (address and such) and whatnot in a relaxed environment where you have ample time to explain the circumstances. Whereas on course, you will be told (probably very firmly) that moves during course/during your training period until posting are not permitted. (In my posting message it specifically stated this.) Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and things are handled case by case, but it will be much easier to get the move and address change done prior.

 

[Ryan_T]

Make sure you get all this sorted out before you head on course. From personal experience, it's just easier. Yes, you can request to sit down with a clerk during course, as there are admin periods and such. But ideally, you'd like to take care of loose ends, change of info (address and such) and whatnot in a relaxed environment where you have ample time to explain the circumstances. Whereas on course, you will be told (probably very firmly) that moves during course/during your training period until posting are not permitted. (In my posting message it specifically stated this.) Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and things are handled case by case, but it will be much easier to get the move and address change done prior.

What if the family decided to do the relocation (temp of course) just prior but I don't officially move there because of going to training?

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk

 

[BeyondTheNow]

What if the family decided to do the relocation (temp of course) just prior but I don't officially move there because of going to training?

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk

Just make sure that the address where your HG&E (Household goods & effects) needs to be moved from matches what they have on file. If your family picks up and moves (again, at their own expense) and you stay behind sleeping on a friend's couch or renting a room somewhere or whatever the case may be, fine. But you have to list your address as where they will move your family and belongings from. You can't have two physical addresses.

Side note: As well, your address needs to match what they have on file for travel claims when/if you actually leave for course. You need to be at the physical location they have listed for accurate travel/claim coverage.

Whatever you decide to do, just do it before a posting message comes in. To avoid complication/confusion, it's best you all stick together.

 

[Ryan_T]

Just make sure that the address where your HG&E (Household goods & effects) needs to be moved from matches what they have on file. If your family picks up and moves (again, at their own expense) and you stay behind sleeping on a friend's couch or renting a room somewhere or whatever the case may be, fine. But you have to list your address as where they will move your family and belongings from. You can't have two physical addresses.

Side note: As well, your address needs to match what they have on file for travel claims when/if you actually leave for course. You need to be at the physical location they have listed for accurate travel/claim coverage.

Whatever you decide to do, just do it before a posting message comes in. To avoid complication/confusion, it's best you all stick together.

I am waiting for a recruiter to call me back about this matter. I know that my families physical address will change if/when I go on course.

Sent from my WAS-L03T using Tapatalk

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Another consideration;  if you ARE going to move your family there, is there any chance for you to move there as well and have your file transferred to the nearest CFRC?

After you are done serving, on your final move, if you wanted to move back to this location on the Island, and you were enrolled from Vancouver with a primary residence address in Vancouver, there is the possibility the CF will only move you as far as Vancouver on the final move as well and you'd be paying the remainder.

My opinion from various experiences with moving in the CAF, if you can have your file moved before you are sworn in and your address is the intended place of residence on the Island, do that if at all possible.  I know it sounds easier than it is, I've done something similar myself in the past.  :2c:

 

[Pusser]

Another consideration;  if you ARE going to move your family there, is there any chance for you to move there as well and have your file transferred to the nearest CFRC?

After you are done serving, on your final move, if you wanted to move back to this location on the Island, and you were enrolled from Vancouver with a primary residence address in Vancouver, there is the possibility the CF will only move you as far as Vancouver on the final move as well and you'd be paying the remainder.

My opinion from various experiences with moving in the CAF, if you can have your file moved before you are sworn in and your address is the intended place of residence on the Island, do that if at all possible.  I know it sounds easier than it is, I've done something similar myself in the past.  :2c:

This is good advice.  However, don't get too bent out of shape about the precise address of your dependants.  It makes no difference in terms of benefits when it comes time for your actual first posting move (i.e. moving your dependants, furniture and effects after all your training is complete) whether the CAF moves you from 125th St in Vancouver or Oak St in Vancouver.  It really doesn't. Your dependants can move on their own multiple times within the same area.  It all costs the same to the CAF in the long run.  If your wife and child move to Cowichan, it may make a difference (Lumber is quite correct on this) in that you would likely be on the hook for the difference between a move from Vancouver and one from Vancouver Island, but I would argue that in the grand scheme of things, the difference will be minimal considering the likely savings to be had if she lives with her parents (not to mention the reduced stress from having a support network close by while you're away).  Don't sweat the small stuff.  It is, however, important for your files to accurately reflect where your dependants are living, so regardless of what you decide to do, always make sure your chain of command knows where they live.

In summary: 

1)  If you can get your primary residence on enrollment to be Cowichan, BONUS!  You win on all counts.  (t may not even be necessary for your dependants to be physically there before you leave for BMQ.  As long as they have an address, you should be fine.  Not though that the CAF will not pay to move your dependants out of Vancouver at this point.

2)  If you can't, don't worry about it.  The benefits of her moving to Cowichan still outweigh staying in Vancouver (as I understand it).  You may end up a little out of pocket, but there are worse things.

As an aside, the CAF can order you, the member, to do many things, but they cannot order your dependants to anything at all.  Full stop.  However, what the CAF pays for is an entirely different thing.  So your spouse can do anything she likes.  Just be prepared to foot the bill if necessary.

 

[Quirky]

No, that's why directives as set out in the MHRRP Ch 62 need to be followed.

As per the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) Ch 62 The ONLY paperwork required is the request form and the statutory declaration.  There is NOTHING on either form stating that a lease/mortgage is required.

Anyone have a link for these Common-Law procedures on the DIN? I've been looking for the request form and stat declaration and have come up with nothing.

 

[da1root]

They're in the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP); if you search for "MHRRP" on any DWAN Site the upkprod website will come up.
Failing being able to find that speak with the HRA in your OR/ShO, they should have the link and/or know how to find them.

Cheers

 

[dimsum]

Question - understanding that the CAF recognizes common law after a year of living together, if we've lived together for 11 months and she then has to move for university, is it possible to get it recognized early? 

Alternatively, if she's moving for only 2 semesters and returning before I'm due to be posted (therefore living together again for combined total of more than 12 months) can I submit the paperwork once we've reached 12 months of cohabitation?

 

[Quirky]

I’m trying to get a clear answer from someone in the WOR regarding this CL application. No one has a clue. I’ve filled out the application and I guess i need to have an interview with the CO, bring my spouse and sign the declaration in front of him?

I’ve been getting answers like I need to have a bill or some other bullshit with both our names on it. Well the mgt, house and all the bills are all on my name and are going to stay that way. It has nothing to do with living together for a year with my gf.

So what’s the actual procedure, fill out the forms and hand them to who? OR? COs secretary?

 

[garb811]

I’m trying to get a clear answer from someone in the WOR regarding this CL application. No one has a clue. I’ve filled out the application and I guess i need to have an interview with the CO, bring my spouse and sign the declaration in front of him?

I’ve been getting answers like I need to have a bill or some other bullshit with both our names on it. Well the mgt, house and all the bills are all on my name and are going to stay that way. It has nothing to do with living together for a year with my gf.

So what’s the actual procedure, fill out the forms and hand them to who? OR? COs secretary?

It does have something to do with with living together for a year with your girlfriend, it's to establish that it is both of your primary residence for a year.  It doesn't have to be "your" bills, it could be a credit card bill of hers dated a year or more ago that is going to that address, other types of mail that is delivered in her name to that address etc that has a date stamp on it, a loan application of hers from a year ago with the address...there are a ton of different ways to prove residence.  If she doesn't have any of that, it is kind of hard to argue that your place has been her primary residence.  Not saying it can't be done, just makes it a lot harder, particularly if she hasn't bothered to change other types of ID like her drivers license to that address, has maintained a separate apartment etc etc.  All of that points to not meeting the cohabitation requirement.

The actual policy and procedure is laid out on the DWAN and is relatively easy to find.  But yes, you both need to be present to sign the stat dec as the paperwork requires both of you to sign it and to be positively identified at that time.

If it is that important, due to an upcoming tour, she suddenly needs you dental/medical coverage, a posting you want to move her on and you can't prove joint residency, there is always the JP or a trip to Vegas...

 

[Quirky]

It does have something to do with with living together for a year with your girlfriend, it's to establish that it is both of your primary residence for a year.  It doesn't have to be "your" bills, it could be a credit card bill of hers dated a year or more ago that is going to that address, other types of mail that is delivered in her name to that address etc that has a date stamp on it, a loan application of hers from a year ago with the address...there are a ton of different ways to prove residence.  If she doesn't have any of that, it is kind of hard to argue that your place has been her primary residence.  Not saying it can't be done, just makes it a lot harder, particularly if she hasn't bothered to change other types of ID like her drivers license to that address, has maintained a separate apartment etc etc.  All of that points to not meeting the cohabitation requirement.

The actual policy and procedure is laid out on the DWAN and is relatively easy to find.  But yes, you both need to be present to sign the stat dec as the paperwork requires both of you to sign it and to be positively identified at that time.

If it is that important, due to an upcoming tour, she suddenly needs you dental/medical coverage, a posting you want to move her on and you can't prove joint residency, there is always the JP or a trip to Vegas...

Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move.

Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.

 

[garb811]

Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move.

Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.

:facepalm:

Well, if that's your attitude when someone who has gotten more than a few couples through the process gives you some advice, good luck!  You're going to need it.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Providing proof of residency has nothing to do with the CL application and there is no mention of it in the official policy. Besides, I called all my billing companies and none of them will just “put a name” on a bill. The only thing that’d I’d have is a receipt of the uhaul we used for the move.

Then again policy doesn’t actually require any proof, which makes sense. Putting someone on a bill or mortgage for that matter proves nothing.

That’s odd, because when I had to provide proof of CL, my SO had me added to two bills with nothing more than a phone call and internet access. (Hydro and car insurance).

What you’re being told is correct, as I’ve gone through it myself and have also administered portions of the process in terms of the necessary paperwork and required documents from the members.

 

[kratz]

[quote author=Quirky
[/quote]

If you want to learn from experience,  read after asking.

 

[Quirky]

Time for a Clerk to weigh in that has processed MANY common law status requests including one for myself.

In accordance with the Military Human Resources Records Procedures (MHRRP) the ONLY documents required to claim common law status is the request form itself and the statutory declaration.  There is NO requirement to provide a lease/mortgage document to prove that you have been co-habiting as a couple for the process, in every single common law status request that I have processed (including my own) I have yet to ever have a lease/mortgage attached to the package.

I have heard this requirement from many clerks these days and I have informed each and everyone one of them that they are not inline with the MHRRP when that state that this is a requirement.  Whoever is stating that this is a requirement may want to have a read of MHRRP Chapter 62 and QR&O 1.075.

That’s odd, because when I had to provide proof of CL, my SO had me added to two bills with nothing more than a phone call and internet access. (Hydro and car insurance).

What you’re being told is correct, as I’ve gone through it myself and have also administered portions of the process in terms of the necessary paperwork and required documents from the members.

These two posts give me two completely different answers regarding proof of cohabitation. I rummaged through Chapter 62 and I didn’t see anything regarding proof.

In my trade I am required, by law, to follow written policy and document. The “because I told you so” and “that’s the way it’s always been done” rhetoric doesn’t fly. Literally. When I read policy and I get answers that don’t follow them, I start to ask questions.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

These two posts give me two completely different answers regarding proof of cohabitation. I rummaged through Chapter 62 and I didn’t see anything regarding proof.

In my trade I am required, by law, to follow written policy and document. The “because I told you so” and “that’s the way it’s always been done” rhetoric doesn’t fly. Literally. When I read policy and I get answers that don’t follow them, I start to ask questions.

B_HRA has far more experience and knowledge in the area and perhaps he, or another member in-the-know might swing by and clarify further.

At this point, the only thing I can do is surmise (until I can look it up further) that the requirement of being asked to provide back-dated supporting documentation was implemented as a way to have some way of providing proof that common-law status was established on/by a date stated. Yes, to initiate the common-law status the information BHRA provided is correct. But (and I’ve seen in happen), a member walks into the OR and says, “Oh, we started living together on such-and-such a date, so let me sign that stat-dec and we’re good to go.” Ok, well, where’s the proof? How does the military know that the member and the SO are legitimately entitled to the benefits of claiming CL and can thus move forward as such continuing to claim? Unfortunately there are examples of members taking advantage of the system.

 

[captloadie]

B-HRA is stating the interpretation out of the MHRRP, which is guidance to the HRAs, and not policy in and of itself. It is a more formalized version of the old Aide-Memoire that caused so many issues. It is a great place to find the forms and processes, but one needs to also read the underlying policy. The actual policy, issues in a CANFORGEN, states that the CO is the approving authority, and he must be satisfied that all CLP requirements are met. A CO may be satisfied by a signed stat dec. Or he may want more proof, which is his right. So, if your current CoC requires some sort of proof, then that is what is required.

 

[Quirky]

B-HRA is stating the interpretation out of the MHRRP, which is guidance to the HRAs, and not policy in and of itself. It is a more formalized version of the old Aide-Memoire that caused so many issues. It is a great place to find the forms and processes, but one needs to also read the underlying policy. The actual policy, issues in a CANFORGEN, states that the CO is the approving authority, and he must be satisfied that all CLP requirements are met. A CO may be satisfied by a signed stat dec. Or he may want more proof, which is his right. So, if your current CoC requires some sort of proof, then that is what is required.

If the CO requires proof then that's understandable as he/she is the ultimate approval authority.

Unfortunately there are examples of members taking advantage of the system.

That's completely understandable and I've heard of instances where a couple gets married, then after a posting gets divorced just to get a free move. My spouse gets far better benefits than I do so it's not an issue of using the system.

 

[seeds89]

Not a recruiter, but I have some expertise in this area. The applicable regulation (QR&O 1.075) is clear:

1.075 - COMMON-LAW PARTNER AND COMMON-LAW PARTNERSHIP

(1) This article applies to all regulations, orders and instructions issued to the Canadian Forces under the National Defence Act.

(2) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this article.

"common-law partner" (conjoint de fait)in relation to an officer or non-commissioned member, means a person who has been cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship

a. for a period of at least one year; or

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

"common-law partnership" (union de fait)means the relationship between an officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner of that member.

(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.

(4) For greater certainty, a common-law partnership does not end solely because the officer or non-commissioned member and the common-law partner are living separately for military reasons.

(5) When an officer or non-commissioned member has a spouse from whom the member is separated and a common-law partner, a reference to a "spouse or common-law partner" in respect of that member means the common-law partner.

(G) [P.C. 2001-1508 effective 1 September 2001]

Your child's birth certificate showing your name as a parent should suffice, especially when combined with a bank statement for a joint account (it would have both names on it). If you get electronic statements, simply print one off or ask your bank to give you one. In this case, the dates on any of these documents are irrelevant (because you have a child together). You don't need a piece of mail. The list of acceptable things proving of a common-law relationship (that the Recruiting Centre seems to be using) is only a list of examples. It is not all-inclusive, nor is it exhaustive. The person telling you that you need a piece of mail is quite frankly, wrong (although I wouldn't advise you tell them that quite so bluntly). If the "captain won't sign off on it," politely ask why, considering that the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, state that what you have is sufficient.

I need some help finding a policy or wording relating to this in regard to common law vs separated legal spouse being entitled to health/dental benefits. My understanding from this would mean that a common law spouse trumps the separated spouse when in question of either or. Both Sunlife and CanadaLife state that it is up to the member to decide who is listed as the spouse on their benefits as both ex-wife and common law are eligible at the same time, but they will only cover one. The MPRR reflects this change as the common law spouse being the dependent, but Sunlife and CanadaLife don't seem to care that one must be listed on the MPRR in order to truly be eligible. Is it really this vague that it can be either or, or does the military have the final say in who is eligible for benefits, especially in the case where the ex is holding up a divorce because they want benefits?