APS Nightmare... what should I do?

[0136ftw]

My fiancé and I have been together for some time, but we were both wary of moving in together because I was once in a financially (and physically) abuse marriage and he had his son's best interests in protecting him until he was sure. We have lived together for two months (we've been together much longer) and I am pregnant.

This Monday, he received a posting message. I did not. After asking around, I am being told that pregnant isn't the same as having a kid together, and engaged isn't as good as common law or married. I'm writing a memo to my CM, but I have been told that in this time of budget crunch it isn't likely. I have also been told that pregnant women cannot live in the shacks (someone please tell me that's wrong).

What can I do?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ask to speak with your career manager and see if there is some way they can work something out.

 

[PMedMoe]

I call BS on a pregnant member not being allowed to reside in the shacks.

 

[Cadwr]

Recommend a review of QR&O 1.075 (Common-Law Partner and Comon-Law Partnerships), and more importantly CMP 15/06 (Common-Law Partnerships.) 

I suggest you look carefully at para 4.4 of the latter.  Depending on your situation, how you have represented yourselves in the comunity vis-a-vis your relationship, and the reasons why you have not been co-habitating, you may be able to satisfy the requirements to be considered common-law.  There is a form.  There are hoops for jumping through.  But it's worth doing the research and comparing against your own situation.  If nothing else, I think being pregnant satisifes the requirement to demonstrate that your relationship is of a conjugal nature and the engagement/moving in together a demonstration of intent to live in a conjugal relationship.

Good luck.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I thought it was 12 months or after the birth of the child. 

 

[Cadwr]

QR&O 1.075 says:

"common-law partner", 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.

HOWEVER.

There is some wiggle room for interpreting "cohabiting with the member in a conjugal relationship."  There are acceptable reasons for why people who are otherwise "cohabiting" may keep separate addresses. 

As for the assuming support of a child vs. being pregnant... this one might be more challenging.  I don't think anyone is going to argue that being pregnant generally leads to having a child.  Nor that assuming support of that child begins long before the trip down the birth canal.  But in legal terms, this is just yucky.  (Not to make light of your situation in any way - I just can't think of a more accurate term.)

All this to help you find the means of "possibly" legitamizing your relationship - which may or may not improve your standing vis-a-vis getting a posting message. 

Again... Good luck!

*edit - when trying to type quickly while running out the door, one sometime's places extra "e"s in the darndest places...

 

[captloadie]

And just because you are common law and have a baby doesn't mean you would be co-located on a posting. Posting plots are pretty firm now, and posting messages have been cut. You might gain more ground in asking his career manager to cancel his posting than trying to co-locate the both of you.

 

[DAA]

Sounds like it is "decision making time".  I have to agree with "captloadie" whole heartedly.  Whether you married or common-law, doesn't necessarily result in co-location.  CO's and CM's have heard it all, many times over and then some.

If you and he are serious about the matter, then there is always the "City Hall" route, just go and get married.  If you have to think about that one, then maybe it's just not meant to be.

 

[armyvern]

My fiancé and I have been together for some time, but we were both wary of moving in together because I was once in a financially (and physically) abuse marriage and he had his son's best interests in protecting him until he was sure. We have lived together for two months (we've been together much longer) and I am pregnant.

This Monday, he received a posting message. I did not. After asking around, I am being told that pregnant isn't the same as having a kid together, and engaged isn't as good as common law or married. I'm writing a memo to my CM, but I have been told that in this time of budget crunch it isn't likely. I have also been told that pregnant women cannot live in the shacks (someone please tell me that's wrong).

What can I do?

Interesting.  What is your due date and what is his COS date?

You can officially be declared "Common Law - Svc Spouse" at the earlier date of:
- Having lived together for 1 year (make sure you have utility bills etc showing addy in both of your names); OR
- Immediately upon birth of the dependent child (which will definitely be sooner than the 10 months it will take you to hit the 1 year mark of living together).

You are indeed allowed to live in the shacks while pregnant, but you must move out of the shacks immediately upon birth of the child as dependents can not live in the shacks. I had a pregnant & single co-worker once move out of the shacks and in with us a month before her due date ... her PMQ became available about 3 weeks after her little guy was born.  Petawawa allowed her to go on the wait-list for a Q while she was still pregnant.  This could be an option for you.  Nothing guarantees that they'd post you with him even if you were already CL or married (trust me on this one - I'm heading into IR 5).

Even so, regarding expenses after the child is born, it is dependent upon your due date and his COS date:
1)  If his COS date is prior to the date of the child's birth, you will still have to pay for your living quarters in both places (he for his and you for yours) as your official common-law date is "after COS date" and ergo no entitlement to free rations & quarters (IAW IR directives) exists;  (I could be wrong on this one given all the damn changes lately and I am not at work to pull up the refs thus am strike-throughing).
2)  If you have the child prior to his COS date, your CL date is prior and therefore he would then be entitled to apply/possibly proceed on IR posting (if his career manager approves) thus having his quarters paid for (you could not be the IR member if the child remains with you).
3)  If you're both engaged and divorced (as one does not have to be divorced to be "engaged" and your post is unclear) get married now and solve everything at once.  ;D

Edited to strike-through.  Don't want to put something out there that may not be the case today.

 

[0136ftw]

I am unfortunately still legally married, and refuse to get married for a posting (once burned twice shy). I am due in September (yes, I'm still in my first trimester). I know I will have to pay for living quarters in both places, this does not bother me. I have been looking into this since I found out I was pregnant, because he had rumours of a posting, but my CoC has been failing to follow through with my requests.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If his son is living with them, can she not be said to be the person having jointly assumed the support of a child? That would knock out the 12 month wait and the wait of her own child delivery, wouldn't it?

Just askin'  :dunno:

 

[Strike]

If his son is living with them, can she not be said to be the person having jointly assumed the support of a child? That would knock out the 12 month wait and the wait of her own child delivery, wouldn't it?

Just askin'  :dunno:

Only if she adopted the child.

As an aside, if things don't turn out for the posting, you may want to throw some questions out there to the CM and your CoC as to what support will be available to you should you suddenly become a high risk pregnancy (It happens, trust me.  ).  The last thing you need is to be stuck on bed rest unable to travel with your other half on the other side of the country.

 

[armyvern]

I am unfortunately still legally married, and refuse to get married for a posting (once burned twice shy)...

Then you really have no issues at all then.  Once burned, twice shy and all that personal choice/decision you made stuff ...

What YOU (not your Chain of Command!!) need to do is go get your name put on the waiting list for a Q, and submit your name for the shacks on the date the movers pack up your house to move it.  Hopefully, you'll have a Q by the time the child is born; if not, rent.

Your CoC has SFA to do with any of the above.  Until that date hits, you are single. Officially.  Nada.

Sad fact of life is the fact that you are not common law now ... and the CoC/Careers can not treat you as if you were.  You need to wait until the earliest of the two dates just like everyone else.  And to be clear, I have no sympathy on the non-co-located posting front. Sad, but that is a fact of life in the CF.  This is a known that career shops make very clear each and every year in their annual briefings so it should certainly not be a surprise to you (either of you).

 

[Shamrock]

Only if she adopted the child.

And ended the marriage.

 

[Cadwr]

Only if she adopted the child

And ended the marriage.

Nope and nope.  There are definitely kids listed on my MPRR whom I have assumed support for but have not adopted (the whole 'in loco parentis' thing).  My wife's children. 

The QR&O has specific clarification that for members who are in both a common-law partnership and a legal marriage, the term 'spouse' applies to the common-law partner only when interpreting the regs. 

QR&O 1.075:

(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.

So we can get "married" (common-law partnership) while still "married" (and separated.) 

edit: updating my reference

 

[Tank Troll]

Only if she adopted the child.

Not true I have 2 depend children from my wife's first marriage that I support and are not adopted by me. I also didn't have to wait 12 months to claim common law because of this. It took 6 months of memos because 2 clerks interpreted as having to adopt them, and because their Farther was paying child support this some how was suppose to negated the fact that they were living with me and I was supporting them.

 

[armyvern]

Not true I have 2 depend children from my wife's first marriage that I support and are not adopted by me. I also didn't have to wait 12 months to claim common law because of this. It took 6 months of memos because 2 clerks interpreted as having to adopt them, and because their Farther was paying child support this some how was suppose to negated the fact that they were living with me and I was supporting them.

Right; so the next question for her is, "does his son live with you?" or is he paying child support while the child's residence is with the mother.  The OP doesn't say that his son lives with them/that he is the custodial parent.

Even given that, that means one of them would be going IR ... is dad willing to let his son remain living with the OP because she obviously isn't going to be the IR one with a new born baby.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Right; so the next question for her is, "does his son live with you?" or is he paying child support while the child's residence is with the mother.  The OP doesn't say that his son lives with them/that he is the custodial parent.

Even given that, that means one of them would be going IR ... is dad willing to let his son remain living with the OP because she obviously isn't going to be the IR one with a new born baby.

Which is why I started my question with..."If his son is living with them," 

 

[Tank Troll]

I was only commenting on the above post about the whole agreeing to support a child thing and that you do not need to adopt the child to be eligible for common law

 

[Strike]

I was only commenting on the above post about the whole agreeing to support a child thing and that you do not need to adopt the child to be eligible for common law

Seen. My bad.