Cover your assets, kids

Quick slap-up here of today's treeware column, about that palimony case in Montreal involving the billionaire and his ex, the Brazilian ''model'' who mothered his three kids.

I've added a few links and notes for your edification.

It's a pity that the case that may end up testing common-law family property rights involves a Quebec billionaire father and a Brazilian beauty fighting for a $50 million settlement.

That plus a $21,000 bump in his current monthly support payment of $35,000 for their three kids, on top of the already paid-for $2.4 million house (which is like $6 million in Toronto dollars), plus the two nannies, the cook, the chauffeur, the luxury condo overseas, the paid vacations. ... Who can relate?

And yet, this much-talked-about case that, like all family law cases in the province, can only be publicly discussed without naming names in order to protect the children, raises many issues about marriage, or the absence of it.

That's because this couple never formally got hitched, despite their repeated couplings over a decade.

Now understand: I am all for a fair division of property between couples, married or not, especially if children are involved. Furthermore, if one partner helped the other get wealthier (or in a position to become wealthier) over the course of the relationship, that too should be taken into account.

But, in this case? It would be pretty difficult for the lady to prove she contributed in any significant way to this man's fortune.

And, just to let you know, Quebec Family Law has a prohibition against naming names -- in order to protect the kids. I am all in favour of it. Poor kids suffer enough when their parents are at war.

That said, it seems that everybody in Montreal knows who the principals are. What's more, some Internet gossips have spilled all over cyberspace. But I am not linking to any of it.

To continue:

Common-law property division is a complex matter, varying from province to province. It is impossible to get into the specifics here. In Ontario, unless you can prove "unjust enrichment" – for example, she puts him through med school and then he dumps her – chances are you leave only with what you came with, what you acquired during the relationship and your personal debts.

Long story dangerously short, keep receipts and cover your assets.

This means that, if you're a woman who takes time out to have babies, you are screwed in more ways than one. Not only do you interrupt your earnings and your career, but your pension will suffer as a result.

Of course, this last bit happens to married women as well, or any spouse who stays at home to keep house and look after the kids.

Funny how feminism worked out that way.

Why do I say that? Because common-law couplings really only began to burgeon in the 1970s, when women like me rejected giving up our names, independence, identity, careers and saw marriage as part of the old patriarchal system.

A blast from the early women's lib past: In Montreal in 1974, I moved in with the man who would eventually become my first husband. My family freaked because, back then, "living together" was "living in sin."

This was back when federal election voters' lists were posted on telephone poles for all to see. So, as a novice reporter, I got the brilliant idea – well, I thought it brilliant – of going through a random sample of these lists to see how many other couples were then doing it without I-doing it.

Turned out it was about one in 10 households, at least in the student 'hoods I surveyed.

Not scientific but pretty prescient.

Since then, francophone Quebecers have abandoned both Rome and marriage. For every couple that walks down the aisle, some 100 others don't. Nearly two-thirds of children are now born to unmarried parents.

And yet Quebec, which has an organized feminist movement unlike most of Canada, offers them no legal protection.

Not that there is much more protection elsewhere -- and that includes guys, guys!

Which brings us back to this controversial case.

The woman, often described as a "model," would be hard-pressed to prove that her taking the time to have and raise the children prevented her from having a $50 million career. It's her only hope, in my not-so-expert opinion, of getting that kind of settlement on top of everything else.

Her mistake was that she hung in there, knowing full well that the father refused to marry her, and kept making babies.

She had a choice. She made her bed. She has to lie in it.

Hey, if the guy won't marry you, and you think that having more babies will change his mind, chances are you are deluding yourself, girlfriend.

The Montreal Gazette's Janet Bagnall sees it differently:

There is no longer any reason for Quebec to treat cohabiting couples differently from married couples. In this province, cohabitation is no longer a marginal state, embarked on lightly by a deviant few. It is fast becoming the norm in Quebec. Its status should be recognized and legally protected.

Those who want freedom of choice could be allowed to opt out. That has the virtue of protecting the unwary and insuring that those who want to forego their rights know that that's what they're doing.

Maybe she has it right. Maybe I have it wrong. I just feel women can't be asking to have it both ways -- while men get to shirk their responsibilities. (Please know that the sexes can be reversed here. I am not picking on men but it's usually men who get to walk.)

One thing's sure. I am not in synch with this ''pro-family'' anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage front woman. Not because what she says about stability isn't fundamentally sound -- although some might describe it as entrapment. It's just that it comes from an anti-woman ideology which subscribes to kinder-kuche-kirke

Living together is by definition a "let's see how this goes" agreement. The "big question" goes unasked, a ring is not given, a white dress is not purchased. You get the point. But marriage is not living together for more than the lack of symbolic (and fun) things a wedding brings. Marriage confers stability - socially and economically.

It is an egregious infringement on freedom to tell couples just living together that simply because they've done the time, their decision is made. It is also the wrong direction to go, when what our economy and communities need most are strong families. The state should not encourage cohabiting couples to think they are married, or make it really easy by offering even greater benefits.

Get married or don't. And if we choose not to, we shouldn't expect the same benefits as if we had chosen marriage.

And on that, I give the last word to Mom.

... as my mother said to me in 1974 as I was walking out the door, "He's not going to buy the cow if he gets the milk for free."

Or, as one reader wrote today, ''Why buy the whole pig when all you want is a little sausage?''

UPPITY DATE: On a somewhat related note, here's The Star's Tracey Tyler today on a significant ruling that will influence many divorces.

Comments

[John Relton]

Every poll has shown that the majority of Quebecers believe that the “common-law relationships” with defined rights and responsibilities exist in Quebec. Most women in unequal relationships only find out that they were mistaken when the relation ends.

The Quebec government is certainly partially responsible for this problem and the confusion. It even uses the term “common-law” to explain “de facto” as if the two were interchangeable. Here’s an example from the RRQ web site:

Quebec Pension Plan
Your spouse is the person to whom you are married, in a civil union or in a de facto (common law) union.
(http://www.rrq.gouv.qc.ca/en/vie_a_deux/couple/)

The same term is being used in so many different ways it’s hard to keep up with what the law is (even if you have a law degree). For example, if you are in a “de facto union” your partner’s employer must still recognize you as a common-law partner for pension and other benefits.

And, as the Quebec government itself writes:

“Although the Civil Code does not generally regulate the status of de facto spouses, certain laws, such as laws governing employment (social) assistance, legal aid, income tax, the Quebec Pension Plan and workers' compensation, treat de facto spouses of the same or opposite sex as a couple.”
(http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-a.htm)

Quebec has approximately 30 laws granting de facto spouses the same rights as married or civil union spouses, and imposing on them the same obligations.
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-a.htm#legis

[sooey]

Amazing the time and energy people waste in court these days trying to get their fair share of money out of failed relationships. It's almost as if they don't really want the failed relationship to end at all.

[Dr.Dawg]

I lurve that picture! Source?

[Antonia]

I would have posted the source if I can make Typepad simplify the captioning process which I have been trying to learn with the help of our web team. It's all HTML and kinda screwy.

I just Googled cow pig and found this:
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&resnum=1&q=cow%20pig%20gruyere&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[jdv]

I'm surprised at you, Antonia. Endorsing the woman as cow analogy? That's very anti-woman. I think you can do better than this.

[Antonia]

Really JDV?

Why is it anti-woman to tell a woman that, unless she protects herself, she will get screwed? This was my mother's advice to us (my sisters and me) and she was correct.

The analogy is unfortunate, but you can use anything else.

Why should he buy the car if her gets driven for free? Why should be buy the horse if he rides for free? Why should he buy the house if he lives rent-free?

My Mom just used the phrase that is out there. I can't think there is anything ''anti-woman'' about it, just like there's nothing anti-man about the pig-sausage metaphor.

[jdv]

It's anti-woman because women are presented with only one commodity to offer: sex, and insists that they must protect that commodity if they are to be of any worth.

It is our laws that are doing the screwing that are the problem, not the women who choose to "give it away for free."

[Antonia]

Ah, I understand -- and maybe that's true in the sense that my Mother meant it when I was a teenager. But I am talking about everything: children, sex, housekeeping, companionship, adviser, confidant, wardrobe consultant, social organizer and all the other roles that women usually play (for free) in relationships.