SO RSVP without invitation

themosthappy91

I don't get how anyone can say being a social unit and being legally married are the same thing when we constantly tell people it doesn't matter if a guest has had an SO for two days or twenty years- they get to define when they are a couple and that defines if they are a social unit. If it applies for the beginning of a relationship, it must apply for the end.

Plus PP's have listed several reasons not to get divorced that are neither lazy or fraudulent. It comes across as really privileged to me to not realize divorces cost money that some people need for food, clothing and shelter.

HeatherKat

Fat fingers on mobile. Nothing to see here.

SP29

photokitty said:

Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships. 

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad. 

Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc) All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit. Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you don't have to pretend to be married when you are still married. Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.

No, I am saying the legal name has no social tie at all. 

Interestingly enough, this all came up today...

My dad and his girlfriend are planning to get married- they announced it today at Christmas dinner. So I asked my dad about the divorce. He said the reason he and my mother did not legally divorce is because they split amicably and decided what to do in regards to my younger brothers (I was an adult at the time) between themselves. They will not legally divorce until my youngest brother is 18 (which is February), because despite them splitting up everything amicably, the judge could make a ruling on custody or child support against their wishes (such as because my dad makes more money than my mom, he should pay her child support, despite the fact that my brother lives equally in both homes and they negotiate finances regarding my brother between themselves). 

They do not share health benefits. They are not listed on each other's wills. They are not listed as each other's beneficiaries on any sort of financial documents or matters (such as investments or insurance policies). They do not file taxes together. My mom files her own, and my dad and his gf file together. You can be married, separated, and then file as common-law with someone else. Previously my parents would file as "separated". Yes, they are legally married, but they were not living together or accepting financial benefit from each other. 

Common law rules vary greatly in Canada, as they are under provincial legislation and they also vary depending on what you are referring to (i.e. the time frame form when common law status starts for taxes vs. benefits). However, common law status is not affected if one or both parties is still legally married. My dad and his girlfriend are common-law (saying all of this- no, I do not refer to my dad's SO as his wife- she is his "girlfriend"). When my mom and dad divorce, my mom could ask for spousal support- she would be entitled to that as they were legally married, but beyond that, everything else is already split and she no longer gets any other benefits. My dad's gf, as his common law is getting all of that. 

http://www.commonlawrelationships.ca/ontario/
http://taxtalk.hrblock.ca/life-changes-tax/marital-status/determining-your-marital-status/

I don't see fraud here- unless you want to say having control over financial and custodial matters in regard to my minor brother is fraudulent? 

To say that my parents each have a mistress/mister (what's the male version of that?) is kind of offensive to me. I consider a mistress/mister a very serious matter. I take my marriage and my relationship very seriously. I do NOT think marriage is a piece of paper- marriage is about a relationship between two people (which is why I think homosexuals not being allowed to get married is stupid).
But when there is NO relationship between my parents, except for being parents, there is no mistress/mister. 

STARMOON44

The only good reason I can see for inviting someone's spouse, from whom they are estranged, instead of their current significant other, is to send a message that you are a judgmental self righteous jerk.

If someone is conducting their relationship in a way you find inappropriate, whether you don't like that they're actually actively cheating or you're a stickler for paperwork, the solution is never to invite someone they no longer have a relationship with. It's to not invite them, the same way it's generally a bad idea to entertain people you actively dislike.

SP29

AddieCake said:

Serious question: Dad remained married to stepmom for that whole 20 years, even though he sometimes lived with or was with my mom. How would you guys have handled an invitation to my Dad? Would you invite him with whichever between mom and stepmom he was with at the time, or would you insist on inviting him with my stepmom because they were married?

I'd ask your dad who he is in a relationship with, like any other guest I wasn't sure about.

(A mistress to me is when one person is in a *relationship* with someone, but is involved in a second relationship with another while the primary doesn't know, or isn't accepting of it). 

kimmiinthemitten

My ex was similar to SP29. His wife cheated (but let's not ignore the fact that he pushed her out of his life and replaced her with their son prior to that) and now lives with her bf.

They currently have an open schedule that fluctuates each week. Financially theyre split except for some random phone and Internet bill (phone because they're lazy, Internet because it's equal cost). They have never legally filed because they don't want the state to enforce parenting time and child support.

As his girlfriend, I wasn't happy with their situation but as a person/friend I understand. When two people are okay with their situation it's bullshit that the state can mandate otherwise.

But I also think it's bullshit that cheating is the end all be all of vow breakers, when there are probably a dozen other vows that in most cases were violated first (as in the example with my ex. Why is she the bad guy when he completely ignored her physically and emotionally for years?)

photokitty

@SP29 fwiw, I never believed your parent's SO were mistress/mister, that was a separate example. I learned a lot about Canadian tax law today, it's very different from US tax law. I'm sorry I suggested it was fraud, you opened my eyes to a reason I would never have considered - that's messed up that the courts could change an agreed upon custody arrangement when neither party is requesting the change.

I own the fact that I'm judging a situation I know nothing about and then issuing a hypothetical invitation at that. Which is why I would either not associate with people doing it, or I would ask so I could understand the reason behind it and make an informed decision. I also own that I am a curious (prying) person who asks a lot of questions. Thanks for answering them and opening my eyes to a possibility I never would have imagined, even though you didn't owe me any explanation. Cheers!

TheCheeseWench

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows. I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

This is bullshit. My divorce took SEVEN years. There was no way I was going to put my life on hold for that long while he was busy living in our home with the employee he cheated with. There is nothing wrong with having a SO when your marriage is over, and just because the paperwork isn't finalized yet doesn't mean it isn't over.

TheCheeseWench

VicTim328 said:

So I'm not sure how to handle my uncle. Invitations are going out in a week.

He is in the process of divorcing his current wife (auntie #6), who lives on a different continent and does not have permission to re-enter the US based on her visa status.  Given the marital status, I didn't give him a guest.

He is coming to our wedding with his daughter and 3 grandkids.  Somehow he just RSVP'd on our website (didn't know it was active) for everyone and then for a date for himself.  It's a former FI of his from 20+ years ago, who lives on the opposite coast.  Not wanting to break etiquette, I called another uncle to just ask if he was "seeing" this other woman again, and he said no, but he would double check.  Uncle 2 got back to me and said he hasn't seen or talked to her, but saw on FB that she just got divorced again.  typically she is his rebound fling in between marriages (basically, she is leap day, comes around for one day every 4 years), but he hasn't considered her anything since the engagement broke.  So technically not a social unit for over 20 years.

 How should I handle this? I didn't give him a date in my initial count, and my invites are stuffed and labeled.

I'm irritated that he assumed he had a date, and somehow RSVP'd without an invitation. If it was an actual relationship, I'd invite her, but there hasn't even been contact between the two of them since her divorce! 

If it happened naturally, and at Christmas he said "Oh, Linda and I are seeing each other again!" I'd be fine and say "bring her." I think I'm just annoyed....

It sounds as though you are in the clear to explain to him that his invite does not include a +1, if it looks as though that is all she is. Or if you have the extra room, you could allow him to bring her since it appears that she could end up (even temporarily) being a SO in the near future.

Also, coming from a family of "repeat offenders" (my Father married and divorced his second wife twice) I understand the dilemma. You never know how long they'll be around this time, or when they'll be back down the road.

banana468

I dated someone with parents who were separated but not divorced. Mom and dad each moved on and dad dated anyone he wanted (including but not only the mistress). Because of dad's bad financial decisions, it made far more sense for them to remain married but live separately. They were no more married thanow any two single people.

lightningsnow

So I have read everything in this thread and I want to add my own two cents to the entire thing. My parents started their relationship while they were both still respectively married to their abusive spouses. Now I'm not entirely sure exactly how long they were in the relationship prior to me coming along but I do know that it was at least a couple of years. 

My father's divorce was not finalized until the day I was born. At that point my parents were living with each other and my father was helping my mother raise her three sons. Are you saying that during that period of time of them being together and not legally divorced my father should have been invited to any social event with his estranged and abusive wife?

I would see that as a slap in the face to my parents' relationship. I was always taught growing up that you can't help who you fall in love with and how things go in terms of love.

Also I despise the term mistress.

lyndausvi

1)  This is why I gave pretty much all my singles a plus one (the only ones were a few aunts who have a history of not wanting one anyway).    I didn't give a shit who they brought.     Friend, lover, companion I didn't care.   And seriously after all these types of questions I'm glad I didn't care.   One less thing to stress over.   

2)  My MIL was going to bring her married companion of 20+ years (a companion who was nicer to MIL, DH and his siblings than MIL's 2 other husbands combined).   He couldn't make it, but has attend many family weddings and events in the past.    Him and his wife had an understanding.  They lived in separate parts of a duplex, lived their lives mostly separate, but never got divorced. 

Spencer Tracey was married, but had a similar situation with Kathryn Hepburn. Warren Buffett and his now-deceased wife never got divorced, but he had a long-time GF (who he married after his wife died.)  And let's face it, does anyone really think Hilary and Bill do not have some sort of arrangement themselves?

I don't get the lifestyle. I wouldn't be able to handle such an agreement or understanding, if you will, but I'm not one to judge either. It works for them and that is all that matters in my opinion.    

 I give the person I'm closest to the invite with a +one and let them figure out who they want to bring.  Cost wise it doesn't matter who's butt is in the seat.    

Again, one less thing to stress over.

MyNameIsNot

photokitty said:

@SP29 fwiw, I never believed your parent's SO were mistress/mister, that was a separate example. I learned a lot about Canadian tax law today, it's very different from US tax law. I'm sorry I suggested it was fraud, you opened my eyes to a reason I would never have considered - that's messed up that the courts could change an agreed upon custody arrangement when neither party is requesting the change. I own the fact that I'm judging a situation I know nothing about and then issuing a hypothetical invitation at that. Which is why I would either not associate with people doing it, or I would ask so I could understand the reason behind it and make an informed decision. I also own that I am a curious (prying) person who asks a lot of questions. Thanks for answering them and opening my eyes to a possibility I never would have imagined, even though you didn't owe me any explanation. Cheers!

That's not just in Canada. In the US, most states require that a custody/child support arrangement be approved by the Judge before the divorce can be granted. 

In the majority of cases, the court will sign off on a custody schedule unless it is glaringly not in the child's best interest, but child support is a different story. Most states are moving to more quantifiable schedules for support because of complaints about arbitrary and inconsistent awards. Sometimes, that means the Court can't sign off on something, even if both parents agree to it. It's complicated, and I can see why some parents choose to wait until the children turn 18 to divorce.

IMO, married but separated is a status. It may not mean much legally, but neither does single but engaged or single in a relationship. There's still a social difference. 

VicTim328

Update:

Website no longer has RSVP active.  Uncle came over for Christmas.  I mentioned I saw his RSVP, and apologized about it being available online, as we are not giving guests the option and will need his meal selection.  I brought up the fact that I saw that he had RSVP'd for "Lisa," and didn't realize they were seeing each other.  They aren't.  He wanted to bring a date.  I explained that we were not able to accommodate her, but that we would still have a fun time.

holyguacamole79

VicTim328 said:

Update:

Website no longer has RSVP active.  Uncle came over for Christmas.  I mentioned I saw his RSVP, and apologized about it being available online, as we are not giving guests the option and will need his meal selection.  I brought up the fact that I saw that he had RSVP'd for "Lisa," and didn't realize they were seeing each other.  They aren't.  He wanted to bring a date.  I explained that we were not able to accommodate her, but that we would still have a fun time.

Glad to hear it worked out!

kimmiinthemitten

MyNameIsNot said:

photokitty said:

@SP29 fwiw, I never believed your parent's SO were mistress/mister, that was a separate example. I learned a lot about Canadian tax law today, it's very different from US tax law. I'm sorry I suggested it was fraud, you opened my eyes to a reason I would never have considered - that's messed up that the courts could change an agreed upon custody arrangement when neither party is requesting the change. I own the fact that I'm judging a situation I know nothing about and then issuing a hypothetical invitation at that. Which is why I would either not associate with people doing it, or I would ask so I could understand the reason behind it and make an informed decision. I also own that I am a curious (prying) person who asks a lot of questions. Thanks for answering them and opening my eyes to a possibility I never would have imagined, even though you didn't owe me any explanation. Cheers!

That's not just in Canada. In the US, most states require that a custody/child support arrangement be approved by the Judge before the divorce can be granted. 

In the majority of cases, the court will sign off on a custody schedule unless it is glaringly not in the child's best interest, but child support is a different story. Most states are moving to more quantifiable schedules for support because of complaints about arbitrary and inconsistent awards. Sometimes, that means the Court can't sign off on something, even if both parents agree to it. It's complicated, and I can see why some parents choose to wait until the children turn 18 to divorce.

IMO, married but separated is a status. It may not mean much legally, but neither does single but engaged or single in a relationship. There's still a social difference. 

In Michigan, you also have to have a written parenting time agreement, so in my exes case their divorce would never be granted because they change parenting time on a weekly basis.  And yes, child support is always mandatory, even when both parties decline it.

There's even a case where a woman was impregnated by her new boyfriend during the separation and the now divorced father is legally the parent and responsible for child support, even though DNA tests prove it's not his child.  I believe the courts have good intentions when it comes to custody matters but legislators have taken the laws too far (you don't say LOL).

SP29

kimmiinthemitten said:

There's even a case where a woman was impregnated by her new boyfriend during the separation and the now divorced father is legally the parent and responsible for child support, even though DNA tests prove it's not his child.  I believe the courts have good intentions when it comes to custody matters but legislators have taken the laws too far (you don't say LOL).

That's crazy!

I have a friend who married (at least I think they were married... either way, long term relationship, had 2 children together) a woman who had a child from a previous relationship. That child's father was not paying child support. Thus my friend helped raise her for those few years (he did not adopt her). When friend and his wife divorced, even though he no longer is involved in her child's life (he has shared custody of his 2 children, but not her first), he still has to pay child support for her child because he raised her for those few years. 

STARMOON44

kimmiinthemitten said:

MyNameIsNot said:

photokitty said:

@SP29 fwiw, I never believed your parent's SO were mistress/mister, that was a separate example. I learned a lot about Canadian tax law today, it's very different from US tax law. I'm sorry I suggested it was fraud, you opened my eyes to a reason I would never have considered - that's messed up that the courts could change an agreed upon custody arrangement when neither party is requesting the change.

I own the fact that I'm judging a situation I know nothing about and then issuing a hypothetical invitation at that. Which is why I would either not associate with people doing it, or I would ask so I could understand the reason behind it and make an informed decision. I also own that I am a curious (prying) person who asks a lot of questions. Thanks for answering them and opening my eyes to a possibility I never would have imagined, even though you didn't owe me any explanation. Cheers!

That's not just in Canada. In the US, most states require that a custody/child support arrangement be approved by the Judge before the divorce can be granted. 

In the majority of cases, the court will sign off on a custody schedule unless it is glaringly not in the child's best interest, but child support is a different story. Most states are moving to more quantifiable schedules for support because of complaints about arbitrary and inconsistent awards. Sometimes, that means the Court can't sign off on something, even if both parents agree to it. It's complicated, and I can see why some parents choose to wait until the children turn 18 to divorce.

IMO, married but separated is a status. It may not mean much legally, but neither does single but engaged or single in a relationship. There's still a social difference. 

In Michigan, you also have to have a written parenting time agreement, so in my exes case their divorce would never be granted because they change parenting time on a weekly basis.  And yes, child support is always mandatory, even when both parties decline it.

There's even a case where a woman was impregnated by her new boyfriend during the separation and the now divorced father is legally the parent and responsible for child support, even though DNA tests prove it's not his child.  I believe the courts have good intentions when it comes to custody matters but legislators have taken the laws too far (you don't say LOL).


In more than one state there is a legal presumption that a woman's husband is the father of any children she conceives while married. I think the it comes from a not unreasonable place- it protected women from abusive and invasive attack in the days before DNA testing was readily available- but it's something that has a lot of potential to go wrong. And is also a good reason to talk to a family lawyer if you are splitting up a legal relayionship without formally dissolving it.