Keep an eye on your husbands ladies or........

The BBQ Pit
1

some young hottie might come along ,have a secret affair with him, and legally steal a significant portion of your family income for decades even though you’ve reconciled with your husband.

Certainly I agree that if a married man fathers a child in an illicit affair, that child support is proper and due, but it rankles me that a woman who steals a man’s affections from another woman can secure legal entitlement to a sizeable portion of his income and/or assets for her own support, which undoubtedly furthers the injury to the legal wife.

Such is the prospect for one Ontario wife if the ex-mistress of her husband gets her way. An Ontario judge has cleared the way for this mistress to go ahead and sue her married lover for spousal support to the tune of $3000 per month.

See http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id={9063D3A9-8197-4BAD-A11B-D2B69F740EB3}

I truly hope that this suit fails.

2

The wife should have dumped the guy. Then he would have had to pay child support and alimony for two “wives.”

That’ll teach the prick to keep his fly zipped.

3

I never get this stealing business. People are responsible for their own relationships. He decided to step out on his marriage for 20 years, she was single and could have a relationship with whomever she chose, he was married and is responsible for living within the agreements he made to his spouse.

What strikes me as strange about the story is that his wife apparently didn’t miss the $1000 a month child support he was paying. I wonder if this fellow can lie straight in bed.

I would need to see what other money he flung her way before deciding whether or not this case has legs in my book.

But he wasn’t stolen, it was his responsibility, not hers.

4

Since it was HIS responsibility and not the wife’s – but the money comes out of community funds, he should at least be required to give his wife an equal amount of money every month – whether she needs it or not!

5

The fact the man is a cad is without dispute. But if you absolve the mistress by suggesting that all men are fair game for any woman then I disagree. She participated in the deception and knew full well that she was compromising another womans relationship . The wife no doubt was labouring under the false impression that she had a home to work for and maintain. Any legal penalty that the wife might incur as a result of the deception of these two would be a gross injustice to my mind.

6

The wife should divorce him then - the linked article says her had 2 other affairs aside from the one resulting in a child. If the wife minds that her husband fucked around and got someone else pregnant and is paying for it, she should leave. If she chooses to stay, she does it with open eyes.

7
  • her husband*
8

Sorry grienspace, I just do not see married folks as prey for the evil single folks out there. With the exception of kidnap and slavery no person can be stolen without their consent. His relationship, his responsibility. She did not have to protect his relationship, that is 100% his choice. Unless you see men as pathetic creatures who are powerless over their own lives of course. I don’t.

He made vows, he didn’t keep them. His fault and only his fault. The other woman owed his marriage nothing. She got to sit in second place clearly and raise their child pretty much alone which is a good illustration of why being the other woman can suck but she is not responsible for his marriage and after 20 years and a kid he may well have some financial responsibility towards her.
She can’t break the marriage vows as she never made them. He is the only cheat here.

9

…but it rankles me that a woman who steals a man’s affections from another woman…

There is no theft here. A person’s ‘affections’ cannot be stolen, they can only be ‘given’. As Thylacine said, the other woman in this scenario is guilty of no crime, moral or otherwise. The husband on the other hand sounds like a curr. Woe and betide any other woman who gets involved with him in the future! His notion of loyalty and committment leaves much to be desired. :cool:

10

I applaud you Thyacine ! You hit the nail on the head. :slight_smile:

11

But, if you are a single person who is having an affair with a married person, and you know it, you’re still wrong. Maybe not stealing, but wrong for going along with it. If the mistress is unknowing, then she’s innocent.

12

I agree with Naz. Unless the single partner in an affair is unaware of the married partner’s marriage, they are complicit in the married partner’s violattion of their marital vows. They’re “enabling” the damage, accessories to it.

It’s a part of the greater social contract, perhaps awareness of it is dimmed in these post-Lewinsky times, but I still hold it as one of those basic truths of life: you don’t sleep with another person’s spouse.

13

But you can give them a headjob?? :smiley:

14

An ex-wife and an ex-common law partner both receiving support at the same time is not unusual.

Usually the relationships occurred sequentially rather than concurrently, but in either case the first partner has no say over the forming of the second relationship, and both relationships will affect the level of support for each spouse.

I don’t see how the timing of the relationships should make any difference, for it is the needs of the ex-partners rather than the timing of the partnerships that are of significance.

15

Maybe I’m pointing out the obvious, but the above posts make it less than clear that it’s obvious:

The OP was lamenting that the faithful spouse of a cheater was being punished (via a court judgement) for the cheater’s cheating.

Subsequent posts have lambasted the cheater. OK, fine: he’s scum. Stipulated.

What about the original premise of protecting the spouse’s finances from the fallout of an unfaithful partner? Does the faithful spouse deserve to have his/her community assets attached because the other partner was a carpetbagger?

16

Squeegee, the issue is not over communtity poperty, but rather over support. Usually support is based on income, not assets. Property in the possession of the first spouse will not be attached or in any way diminished by the second spouse.

Will the support paid to the first spouse be reduced due to support being paid to the second spouse? Possibly to probably. This, however, would take place regardless of whether the second spouse was a concurrent spouse, or a serial spouse. The support is based on need, not on timing.

17

The wife knew about the affair, for the husband was paying child support for 19 years. At any point the wife could have bailed on the marriage, taking her half of the net family property with her. Presently, the wife could still walk out the door and take her half with her.

Concerning support, the issue is not one of the timing of the relationships (as discussed my previous post), but whether or not the second spouse cohabited with the man.

In Ontario, the statute concerning support for common law spouses specifies that either they must have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years, or have cohabited in a relationship of some permanence if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

The fact is that they had a child, a twenty year affair, including regular sleep-overs, but no actual common residence. When seizing this up against the law, they had a child, they had a relationship of some permanence, but they did not cohabit in the usual sense.

So that is what the court is trying to decide. Did their sleep-overs constitute cohabitation.

I think it does. I think the relationship as a whole should be considered when determining if there is or was a spousal relationship. Whether the parties shared a bed for a certain number of nights per week should be a factor, but should not be determinative. If it were determinative, then that would mean that common law spouses would cease to be spouses if one were placed in assistive housing or a nursing home. If it were, then that would mean that common law spouses would cease to be spouses if one were working away from home for extended periods, as many geologists, miners, mariners, truckers etc. do.

If, all things considered, the relationship was a spousal relationship rather than a fling, then there should be support if there is a need for support and an ability to pay support. That there is another prior spouse is not relevant beyond factoring into the ability to pay.

18

But Muffin, what if the faithful wife does not bail out which it doesn’t appear she will, is it fair that this carpetbagger can gouge this faithful wife out of $3000 per month ?

It would appear to me that the polygamy is now legal in Ontario if “spousal benefits” are attributed to this mistress.

19

IMO, the faithful spouse needs to get her head out of her ass and divorce the prick.

However, I agree that illicit lovers should not ever be considered common-law spouses, or common-law anything.

20

The first spouse is not gouged out of anything. It is not the first wife’s money that is used for support. It is the man’s money.

If the first spouse wants to stay with the fellow, she can not then complain about how he is spending his money, be it on another woman, or be it just tossing it out the window. Her remedy is to dump the dodo.

As far as polygamy being legal, that is not relevant to this case, but just to keep things interesting, why should it not be legal? Would it not be better to recognize a variety of relationships rather than to close one’s eyes to those relationships? Why should poly partners be prohibited from legal recognition and protection?