Hello
Well here's my opinion from my neck of the woods:
One - well the parents would have to have signed something. I know at 16 you can live on your own, but you need parent signed approval (as discussed above). Hey, you'll be living w/ your parents or some other relative!! There was a documentary, on CBC I think, a few months ago on this topic - Children getting married at 13 and 14. Some lived still seperately and then moved in at 16 or 18. SOme lived together in one parent's home.
Lie about your age and live in a cheap hotel on skid row. Lots of people live in cheap hotels.
In Ontario: You must be 18 years of age to get married. It is illegal to marry if you are under 16. Anybody 16 or 17 years of age (other than a widow, widower or divorced person) may marry with the written consent of his/her legal guardian. A special consent form is available for this purpose from your local municipal office. If any person whose consent is required is unavailable or refuses to consent, an application may be made to a judge to dispense with consent.
And then there is all the other Provincial jazz. I have tried to research and talk to friends about this. I knew a few who could only get out at 16. Here's a link on people talking about it. It is short though -
Youth link Here is an article on the subject. It doesn't include marriage I think, but if you think about the legality of marriage you can intertwine it.
Article Two - DId he adopt the kid? Yes. If not, no. If the mum is declared unfit, then he can apply for it. He can bring up accusations and see where that goes... If they are technically common in law and registered then he can fight for the kid, but she can also fight for child support...at least that's what I think.
[edit - March 13th]
I spoke to some friends who are common law and said the court may look at how long the couple was together. The best I can find right now is:
Here is the link. I don't know how trustworthy it is, but anyways, here you go:
The second set of rights applies where the couple have children together. Even if one of the children is not biologically related to one of the parents, so long as the child has been treated historically 'as a child of the family' the court has the power to order financial provision between unmarried spouses for the sake of the children. This is done under what is known as Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The important thing to know about this is that although the courts have the power to award maintenance, transfer property and so on (just as it would on divorce), the court is only looking to the welfare of the children and not the welfare of the parents (which it does on divorce). The court may make financial provision for a child, but it will not improve the financial position of a parent, unless the circumstances are truly exceptional.
Usual orders include things like transferring a home to a mother, but only until the youngest child reaches 18 or finishes full-time education, and paying maintenance to a mother, but only until the court deems that she has had the time to retrain and get back to work - those sorts of things. Again, each case is different and everyone thinking about their rights should speak to a lawyer first, and also to the Child Support Agency, which will have first call on dealing with most applications for child maintenance (ie, monthly sums of money, but not for transfers of tenancies and so on) in any event.
- Well, someone told me that it was 6 months where I live, but I found that a bit quick. I found this quote that pertains where I live (Manitoba. I think it is for the province.) It also depends if you have been registered or not for common law status. When you mean common law mariage, is this what you mean?
If resistered - yes.
If not - no.
In general:
C.C.S.M. c. C120 amended
2 The definition "common-law partner" in subsection 1(1) of The Civil Service Superannuation Act is replaced with the following:
"common-law partner" of a person means
(a) another person who, with the person, registered a common-law relationship under section 13.1 of The Vital Statistics Act, or
(b) another person who, not being married to the person, cohabited with him or her in a conjugal relationship
(i) for a period of at least three years, if either of them is married, or
(ii) for a period of at least one year, if neither of them is married,
as shown by written evidence satisfactory to the board; (« conjoint de fait »)
Quoted fromDealing w/ property:
Even if a couple does not register their relationship, the new property laws will still apply once they’ve lived together for a certain period of time. The period of time varies depending on different laws, but it is usually three years. Once a couple lives together for three years, all the major property acts will apply.
quote from - blah
Five - Well, my bio-da had issues so...depending on how cash strapped your home area is and time of day... Who knows that the parent has psychological issues? That depends. Does the attending Dr. seem to know. If yes, I think it would depend if other relatives showed up first. I don't think they would make it out of the hospital w/o out a social worker on their tail. If no one was sure of his past a psychological consult would be done and if he was deemed unfit there, they would stall until a social worker came.
Six - yes. I was thinking in terms of what someone already mentioned. The whole time period that Lois would have to spit out children. Unless, twins or more happened. Also, I can't imagine Lois wanting to have a heard of holligans.
Seven - if individually - yes.
Eight - more likely to figure it out.
Nine - yes. Legally, I don't fully understand the jargon, but they seem to only focus on those under 18 - a nono.
Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, [etc...]
Criminal code of Canada. The definition of a brother and sister also include 1/2 brother and 1/2 sister.
