How about "common law" marrieds reunited?

[habuspasha]

A Thai judge recently settled a case by recognizing a relationship between a Danish man and a Thai woman as a "common law marriage."  So why can't immigration allow common law spouses a marriage visa?  Without certificate of marriage, a declaration of both partners that they consider themselves married and some evidence of a shared life could be held sufficient.  

[Puccini]

17 minutes ago, habuspasha said:

A Thai judge recently settled a case by recognizing a relationship between a Danish man and a Thai woman as a "common law marriage."  So why can't immigration allow common law spouses a marriage visa? ...

Because a common law marriage is not a de jure marriage. The Covid-19 pandemic does not change this fact.

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Puccini

[habuspasha]

4 hours ago, Puccini said:

Because a common law marriage is not a de jure marriage. The Covid-19 pandemic does not change this fact.

 

"In law and government, de jure describes practices that are legally recognised."  The judge recognised it.  While de jure is distinguished from de facto, it is not limited to the letter of the law or legislation.  It includes judicial interpretation.  Of  course Covid 19 has nothing to do with whether or not a common law marriage should be legally recognised.  It is, or has been.  It could be now as Thailand seeks to reunite families as well.

[kingstonkid]

Common law is not considered a marriage in any country.  It is a relationship that has usually lasted 12 months of continuous co habitation.

 

Therefore it is not recognized by any immigration in any country.

[OneMoreFarang]

On 8/2/2020 at 3:07 AM, habuspasha said:

why

There is again someone who expects logic.

Don't expect logic in Thailand. There is no logic!

After you understand this simple principle life will be a lot easier.

[DaftToPutRealName]

To make matters even worse - I personally know of several rich Thai-Chinese families who won't sign the marriage certificate; and themselves don't live in an "official" marriage, as it makes things easier when it comes to assets.

Mind you, they live together for 20+ years, have kids, business together etc. 

So in Thailand there doesn't appear to be any gotchas like in the West - don't sign the paper and you aren't married.

Interestingly enough, the youth are smarter than this so now they want the marriage certificate without the ceremony! (Probably googling which one gets them a new passport, hahaha)

Edited August 3, 2020 by DaftToPutRealName

[Upnotover]

24 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

Common law is not considered a marriage in any country.  It is a relationship that has usually lasted 12 months of continuous co habitation.

 

Therefore it is not recognized by any immigration in any country.

A relationship akin to marriage is certainly recognised by UK immigration and I think EEA countries also.

[khunjeff]

1 hour ago, kingstonkid said:

Common law is not considered a marriage in any country.  It is a relationship that has usually lasted 12 months of continuous co habitation.

 

Therefore it is not recognized by any immigration in any country.

That isn't true. The problem is that people often treat "live-in girlfriend" and "common law wife" as synonymous terms, which they're not. An actual common law marriage is legally equivalent to a registered marriage, whereas "shacking up" is not.

 

Even in countries that follow the common law (which Thailand does not), the exact requirements for a common law marriage vary, assuming it's allowed at all. (Only a handful of US states recognize it, for example.) Generally, the key factors are that the couple have cohabited for a certain period of time (often longer than 12 months), have consummated the relationship, and have held themselves out to the community as married.

 

If they meet those requirements in a place that recognizes such relationships, they are just as "married" as a couple that got a license and registered at city hall, and would even technically require a divorce if they wanted to separate and marry other people. No such unregistered relationship exists in Thailand - if you live together or have a village wedding, either party can walk away at any time with no formalities.

 

Obviously a registered marriage is much easier to prove than a common law one, and in practice it's relatively easy for a couple to avoid having their relationship called a "marriage" if that's what they want, but the US, at least, will accept a genuine common law marriage as valid for immigration purposes. The pertinent regulation is the following:

 

9 FAM 102.8-1(F)  Common Law Marriage

(CT:VISA-863;   06-17-2019)

In the absence of a marriage certificate, an official verification, or a legal brief verifying full marital rights, a common law marriage or cohabitation is considered to be a “valid marriage” for purposes of visa adjudication only if it is legally recognized in the place in which the relationship was created and is fully equivalent in every respect to a traditional marriage.  To be "fully equivalent", the relationship must bestow all of the same legal rights and duties possessed by partners in a lawfully contracted marriage, including that:

 

(1)  The relationship can only be terminated by divorce or death;

(2)  There is a potential right to alimony;

(3)  There is a right to intestate distribution of an estate; and

(4)  There is a right of custody, if there are children.

[Billy Bloggs]

2 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

Common law is not considered a marriage in any country.  It is a relationship that has usually lasted 12 months of continuous co habitation.

 

Therefore it is not recognized by any immigration in any country.

Wrong it is in Australia

 

[mrfill]

1 hour ago, Upnotover said:

A relationship akin to marriage is certainly recognised by UK immigration and I think EEA countries also.

In the UK a couple can get a Civil Partnership, which confers the same rights as a marriage. This is enshrined in statute so is not 'common law'.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, DaftToPutRealName said:

To make matters even worse - I personally know of several rich Thai-Chinese families who won't sign the marriage certificate; and themselves don't live in an "official" marriage, as it makes things easier when it comes to assets.

Mind you, they live together for 20+ years, have kids, business together etc. 

So in Thailand there doesn't appear to be any gotchas like in the West - don't sign the paper and you aren't married.

Interestingly enough, the youth are smarter than this so now they want the marriage certificate without the ceremony! (Probably googling which one gets them a new passport, hahaha)

Important, it's not only "don't sign the paper and you aren't married".

 

I heard from two independent farangs that they had a marriage ceremony at the village temple with their Thai girlfriend but no official marriage certificate. Nothing signed.

And later pictures from those ceremonies were used to prove that they were married and that they should get divorce payments.

I am no lawyer and I don't know the legal situation but it seem this is a possibility. So be careful even if you don't sign anything. 

 

[natway09]

Basically because you may have some huge responsibilities back home with a wife The judge was referring to a "settlement" & had ascertained that the relationship in this context ONLY was applicable. In this situation only he is right.

You may be surprised to learn that any land & houses we purchased together , although in my partners name cannot be sold without my approval & signature (as long as I am alive)

which is why I sleep alone behind locked doors 555 & cook for myself

[Presnock]

most countries don't allow common law marriages.  If you are so concerned then why not make it legal in all aspects.  Or are you playing like the blacks in the US.  In the 1960's 2-parent black familie numbered approximately 60%.  the Welfare changed and women were allowed more money per each child they had.  Immediately the numbers of marriages for the blacks dropped and the number of babies increased and today approx 20% only are 2-parent families.  Welfare can destroy relationships and countries.

 

[samsensam]

 

it's bizarre that you can think you're married, but you're not. i guess some people need to understand thai law and culture before they wed.

 

and true enough in the majority of countries common law marriage is a myth.

[khunjeff]

30 minutes ago, samsensam said:

and true enough in the majority of countries common law marriage is a myth.

The great majority of countries don't follow the common law, so that's not surprising.

[SteveK]

All the Thai girls who I have met over the years who were previously married did so without documents, they just had the party and considered themselves married. But then, they didn't need to keep presenting piles of documents at immigration like we do.

[Deerculler]

New Zealand has common law marriage after a couple have lived together for two years.

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post (unintelligible)

[habuspasha]

5 hours ago, natway09 said:

Basically because you may have some huge responsibilities back home with a wife

The judge was referring to a "settlement" & had ascertained that the relationship in this context ONLY 

was applicable. In this situation only he is right.

You may be surprised to learn that any land & houses we purchesed together , although in my

partners name cannot be sold without my approval & signture (as long as I am alive)

which is why I sleep alone behind locked doors 555 & cook for myself

I'm not sure Natway understands this particular case, the details of which are easily googleable.  See https://scandasia.com/danish-man-wins-lawsuit-against-thai-wife-for-not-sharing-assets/ or https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2020/07/01/buriram-judge-justice-for-danish-man-thai-wife-relationship-breakdown/ among others.  The judge was a she, not a he.  She did not declare anything about this context "ONLY."  She wouldn't have to since, as the same sources indicate, judicial decisions short of the Supreme Court do not establish precedent.  But she did not only settle a disagreement, she also (contrary to what another poster wrote) issue a judgment that the couple's relationship of a year or two was a common law marriage.  Now, it is true that Thai marriage law does not now accept common law marriages.  But as a couple of the articles indicate, this decision might open other litigants to ask that their common law arrangement be accepted as marriage for the purpose of other benefits.  In addition to the distribution of property in a divorce, why couldn't these include entry to the kingdom when the goal is reuniting a family or separated spouses?

[DJ54]

My guess not easy to determine good guys from bad guys...

[Max69xl]

On 8/2/2020 at 8:18 AM, habuspasha said:

"In law and government, de jure describes practices that are legally recognised."  The judge recognised it.  While de jure is distinguished from de facto, it is not limited to the letter of the law or legislation.  It includes judicial interpretation.  Of  course Covid 19 has nothing to do with whether or not a common law marriage should be legally recognised.  It is, or has been.  It could be now as Thailand seeks to reunite families as well.

Well, how are you supposed to prove without any doubt in writing to the Thai authorities,read Thai embassies in the world, that the relationship should be seen as a "common law marriage" when tens of thousands of Thai girls have more than one bf (when checking incoming money to their bank accounts)? Are friends and family supposed to be witnesses? Do you need to have kids or have stayed in Thailand a certain amount of years?  

[habuspasha]

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

Well, how are you supposed to prove without any doubt in writing to the Thai authorities,read Thai embassies in the world, that the relationship should be seen as a "common law marriage" when tens of thousands of Thai girls have more than one bf (when checking incoming money to their bank accounts)? Are friends and family supposed to be witnesses? Do you need to have kids or have stayed in Thailand a certain amount of years?  

All problems to be worked out, as in any administrative policy.  But I would say you ask for a signed declaration by each that they consider themselves married to each other, maybe an additional family or friend statement, evidence of cohabitation, shared finances or support.  None of that is exceptional.  And few things are proved "without any doubt."  The preponderance of evidence should be enough.

[hotchilli]

14 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There is again someone who expects logic.

Don't expect logic in Thailand. There is no logic!

After you understand this simple principle life will be a lot easier.

There is logic.. common law marriage is just an acceptance of two people living together for more than 12 months so they have some rights if/when the occasion arises that a decision has to be mage about property/possessions etc.

However if you do not have a registered marriage certificate as far as immigration goes and the rights that go with that you are not married legally !

Common law co- habitation is not a loop-hole to get around obtaining visa's.

[Jack Hna]

My Mrs heart sank when I showed her that story a few weeks back. 

 

 

[brianthainess]

17 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

Common law is not considered a marriage in any country.  It is a relationship that has usually lasted 12 months of continuous co habitation.

 

Therefore it is not recognized by any immigration in any country.

Australia recognized my spouse when i applied from the uk for a permanent visa. affidavit's from our parents and our friends, of our ongoing loving relationship (20+ years). She dumped me after 6 yrs in OZ and still lives there. . 

[Andycoops]

18 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Important, it's not only "don't sign the paper and you aren't married".

 

I heard from two independent farangs that they had a marriage ceremony at the village temple with their Thai girlfriend but no official marriage certificate. Nothing signed.

And later pictures from those ceremonies were used to prove that they were married and that they should get divorce payments.

I am no lawyer and I don't know the legal situation but it seem this is a possibility. So be careful even if you don't sign anything. 

 

The village ceremony is entirely religious and to save face.

It doesn't prove you are legally married.

[OneMoreFarang]

32 minutes ago, Andycoops said:

The village ceremony is entirely religious and to save face.

It doesn't prove you are legally married.

Are you sure?

Because in two cases I know pictures of that ceremony were used as prove they were married so that the women got divorce payments.

I don't know how common that is and the exact legal situation. But I know it happens. So better think about this might happen.

 

Nothing signed, no ceremony = no problem.

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post (unintelligible)