Pursuinghappiness
New member
Why exclusive possession? Interim support I agree but there's no grounds to take this woman's home.
Common Law Separation
- Thread starter AVCanada
- Start date
Why exclusive possession? Interim support I agree but there's no grounds to take this woman's home.
arabian
New member
He's the primary caregiver and I would presume child would stay at same school? Of course the couple could continue to live in the home together until it is sold. A lawyer would advise him on the tactical advantage/disadvantage of obtaining interim order which would include temporary residence of matrimonial home. Who knows? People on these forums rarely provide all the nitty-gritty details of their situation.
Pursuinghappiness
New member
Generally exclusive possession happens under extreme cirumstances...ie, abuse. It isn't advised otherwise for either litigant to leave their home because of the obvious issues it causes with custody status quo, etc. And to try to force her to leave with a court order isn't likely to be successful and would be a very hostile act.
I always find it interesting when people call the SAHP the "primary" parent as if that carries some special, magical designation to allow an unfair custody distribution against the parent that's out there earning a living every day to keep a roof over their child's head and food in their mouth.
This mom has as much right to her home, her money and especially to her child as any non-earning parent. In fact, I think what's she's about to undergo litigation-wise is likely to be very unfair.
Last edited:
Janus
New member
Nah, it is frequently ordered when one parent has primary residential custody. The idea is that the kid gets to live in the house and is not disturbed too much as a result.
Agreed, no parent should leave voluntarily. Exclusive possession is a weapon, not a shield. You can preemptively strike a decisive blow in the custody battle by getting exclusive possession. Once the other parent has been kicked out of the house, they will be financially devastated and will likely have to settle for much less than they deserve.
Litigation is inherently hostile. And exclusive possession is not nearly as difficult to achieve as you might think. Easier if you are female of course, you just say that you are afraid or some variation upon that, but it should be possible for a male to pull it off.
Because, in family law world, the SAHP does get to claim "primary" which does have a special magical designation that allows for an unfair custody distribution against the parent who is out there actually working and earning money.
Of course it will be unfair. This has been happening to fathers for decades, are you actually surprised?
The best way to change it is for these horrible things to happen to mothers. Stay at home fathers need to stop agreeing to shared and need to start eviscerating mothers who work. Stay at home fathers can win. We need to stop telling fathers to be nice.
Stop lying to this guy. If he goes to court, he will win. If enough fathers do this, eventually the laws (or at least the case law) will change. Right now though, he is looking at a slam dunk victory if he is willing to fight. That is good for him, good for fathers, and good for all children in Canada.
Pursuinghappiness
New member
Only IF the other parent is suggesting to move the child out of the home to a new residence. Particularly one in a new school district. If she's not planning to do that, exclusive possession is unlikely to happen. And he didn't suggest that she's trying to do that. Judges don't like to kick people out of their home and not force them to lose access to their children. This is HER home. She's paying the bills and this is a commonlaw situation which has slightly different marital home division rules.
Again, judges know this so they're not likely to just kick her out. I know a LOT of people that try this move and I know only one that's been successful (it was a man actually) and ONLY because the other person's lawyer was an idiot and missed the exclusive possession order in the filing.
Just as long as he understands she can also get hostile. In my opinion, its something that should be avoided if at all possible. And that has nothing to do with differences in gender roles in this case.
That is starting to change though...as it should. And I'm equally as critical of the women who pull this stuff.
I disagree. I think the rules are changing to be fair to working people. Punishing working mothers is equally as bad. I stand up for every working person regardless of gender. What really needs to happen is that adult people need to stop tolerating other adults in their house not earning a living. All adults should be contributing to their household and supporting the children of those households. That is one of your main duties as a parent.
You obviously didn't read my posts. I said 10 times that the law favors him...not her...because she's been stupid and allowed him to take advantage of her for years. I didn't say he wouldn't win...I said its unfair. Regardless of gender...its immoral and unfair...period.
People who do this stuff are simply trying to get away with not being responsible and forcing other people to fund their lazy lifestyles. And trust me, I say the same crap to long-term SAHMs...I have no respect for people who don't contribute to the financial burden of a household and then expect someone to take care of them endlessly after divorce. Its ridiculous. If you've ever read my posts....you've seen me ranting about females that do this. I'm not going to say its ok for this poster because he's male...its equally as shameful.
arabian
New member
Like it or not, courts view marriages where one does not work outside of the home as "traditional." There is much case law and literature on this so there is no need to re-hash the topic. Agree or disagree. It matters not.
When there is a power imbalance (as in this case) courts will typically side with the individual who has no income for an INTERIM Order of exclusive possession - at least until outstanding financial matters are resolved. So the mother (in this case) should get her shit together asap as opposed to attempting to drag things out.
When there is a power imbalance (as in this case) courts will typically side with the individual who has no income for an INTERIM Order of exclusive possession - at least until outstanding financial matters are resolved. So the mother (in this case) should get her shit together asap as opposed to attempting to drag things out.
Pursuinghappiness
New member
Actually the most likely scenario is that they'll live in the house together until the disposition of the house is decided. That's generally what happens. The only thing he's likely to get for an interim decision is SS...and that won't happen until after he can file a motion post 1st case conference. Until then, her lawyer will tell her to bare bones support the bills...particularly if he's able-bodied. Most litigants end up living together separated. Judges aren't likely to kick her out of her own home that she's paying all the bills in away from her kid. He's welcome to try but I'll bet it doesn't happen.
The most likely scenario is that this litigant is going to have to find a way to support himself or borrow money until he gets interim support.
If she's smart, she's already gotten a lawyer. And don't forget, this is a commonlaw relationship...so the marital home rules are not the same.
And by the way, the REASON that women get exclusive possession of the home at all is largely because they make false abuse allegations. It happens all the time. They initiate a fight, it escalates, they call the cops and get a police report, then they take the police report to court. You can't just kick someone out of their house..especially when they're paying all the bills...without a reason. This is the main reason that abuse allegations are so prevalent in early separations.
Last edited:
arabian
New member
Hopefully the two can come to an agreement and avoid litigation.
People are stubborn though. A trip to the local family law centre, and then on to free legal aid lawyer will provide the poster "wings." If the wife is smart she will make a reasonable offer sooner rather than later.
People are stubborn though. A trip to the local family law centre, and then on to free legal aid lawyer will provide the poster "wings." If the wife is smart she will make a reasonable offer sooner rather than later.
Woah, lots of assumptions happening here.
I'm not after the house, just my equity and child support for some breathing room of at least a year in order to get my life in order and make the transition for our son as tolerable as possible. Nothing more really.
Thanks for all the replies.
I'm not after the house, just my equity and child support for some breathing room of at least a year in order to get my life in order and make the transition for our son as tolerable as possible. Nothing more really.
Thanks for all the replies.
arabian
New member
Yeah I guess from your perspective things sound pretty awful. Thing is, many people on here started where you are, with the best intentions and what they thought was a 'reasonable' position. What you may find out though, is that things can very easily blow up, particularly when one party takes an unreasonable position or obtains advice from friends instead of obtaining proper legal advice.
Hope things work out for you and that your ex is proven to be "reasonable."
Hope things work out for you and that your ex is proven to be "reasonable."
Has the OP considered that he may not be able to keep the home? Even if he keeps it and then gets child support and some spousal support, if that's the only income he has coming in, the house may not be affordable (which will only exacerbate anxiety). If I were him, I would start getting the house assessed for sale.
It's also important whether the OP has been determined to be unable to work by a medical professional. If there is a doctor who can say "Mr xxx suffers from condition abc and is therefore not able to re-enter the workforce full time", the case for spousal support becomes clearer. "Anxiety" could mean many things.
I think it is reasonable to seek short-term SS in order to retrain, with a clear plan for gaining skills in a marketable job which is doable given the OP's medical issues, and a defined end date for SS. This could be sold to the ex as paying a little in the short-term to avoid paying a lot more in the long-term, if the OP is completely unable to work because of lack of skills and/or medical condition.
It's also important whether the OP has been determined to be unable to work by a medical professional. If there is a doctor who can say "Mr xxx suffers from condition abc and is therefore not able to re-enter the workforce full time", the case for spousal support becomes clearer. "Anxiety" could mean many things.
I think it is reasonable to seek short-term SS in order to retrain, with a clear plan for gaining skills in a marketable job which is doable given the OP's medical issues, and a defined end date for SS. This could be sold to the ex as paying a little in the short-term to avoid paying a lot more in the long-term, if the OP is completely unable to work because of lack of skills and/or medical condition.
Thank you for that, arabian.
I've learned a lot and I thank all of you with the utmost sincerity.
Pursuinghappiness
New member
It will be interesting to see if she makes an unjust enrichment argument given that you are commonlaw and she can prove she's been paying all of the mortgage for the entire time you've been living in the house....not sure how that would work out for her.
Child support will definitely happen. She'll get stuck with the entire bill of taking care of a child that belongs to both of you. I hope she wises up for her next relationship.