It is weird only in that if they are not going to socially separate, all this tells us is that they have decided to separate their assets. Is that worth announcing? Were we otherwise going to be alarmed if Sofie opened a new bank account in her own name?
In Ontario, you have to be separated (defined as living apart) for a year before you can get a divorce. There are exceptions for abuse and adultery, but this is the first legal step on the road to divorce. Whenever possible, it’s best to keep it as amicable as possible when children are involved. That can still include going on vacations together.
Ontario family law is written around the idea that women are helpless. Nonsensical by today’s standards, but in a historical context, where things like job options for women were limited to non-existent, it becomes a little more understandable.
Given that, the idea is that a year of separation allows demonstration that a woman is able to separate from her husband. The state wants to ensure that she isn’t going to be discarded to the streets where she will be left to be burden on society. If that test fails, she remains the “man’s problem.”
Why are we in Ontario intent to hang on to such sexist views? Well, it’s Ontario, land of conservatism. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to finally give up being dry (in the prohibition sense)! We’re the Arab state of the west.
Typically one will spell out the division of assets in a separation agreement. That can be done at any time. You can even write up such an agreement when you are at the peak of marital bliss if you really wanted, although it might be unusual.
They seem to be happy to maintain a relationship, even if just for the kids, so there is no social division.
Divorce doesn’t really mean much – other than allowing you to get married again, I suppose. It’s a pretty handwavvy concept to begin with.
Not that weird. The kids are the priority, and they should be.
It is weird only in that if they are not going to socially separate, all this tells us is that they have decided to separate their assets. Is that worth announcing? Were we otherwise going to be alarmed if Sofie opened a new bank account in her own name?
In Ontario, you have to be separated (defined as living apart) for a year before you can get a divorce. There are exceptions for abuse and adultery, but this is the first legal step on the road to divorce. Whenever possible, it’s best to keep it as amicable as possible when children are involved. That can still include going on vacations together.
What the fuck? Actually? What’s the reasoning there? That seems unusual to me.
Ontario family law is written around the idea that women are helpless. Nonsensical by today’s standards, but in a historical context, where things like job options for women were limited to non-existent, it becomes a little more understandable.
Given that, the idea is that a year of separation allows demonstration that a woman is able to separate from her husband. The state wants to ensure that she isn’t going to be discarded to the streets where she will be left to be burden on society. If that test fails, she remains the “man’s problem.”
Why are we in Ontario intent to hang on to such sexist views? Well, it’s Ontario, land of conservatism. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to finally give up being dry (in the prohibition sense)! We’re the Arab state of the west.
Uh, what?! Can you point me to some further reading on that? Ontario is far stranger than I thought.
https://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2012/02/a_brief_history_of_booze_in_the_junction/
Thanks!
Typically one will spell out the division of assets in a separation agreement. That can be done at any time. You can even write up such an agreement when you are at the peak of marital bliss if you really wanted, although it might be unusual.
They seem to be happy to maintain a relationship, even if just for the kids, so there is no social division.
Divorce doesn’t really mean much – other than allowing you to get married again, I suppose. It’s a pretty handwavvy concept to begin with.