Economic Abuse

[OnMyWay]

1 hour ago, Joey G said:

As the old saying goes.... play stupid games, win stupid prizes 

 

14 hours ago, Lee said:

Perhaps there needs to be a law where a foreigner can go after his ex gf when she ditches him after cleaning out his bank account. Just a thought.

These seem to go together.

[OnMyWay]

3 minutes ago, fillipino_wannabe said:

It's anyone you've slept with or dated:

What is Violence Against Women and Their Children under RA9262?

It refers to any act or a series of acts committed by an intimate partner (husband, ex-husband, live-in partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, fiance, who the woman had sexual/dating relationship):

• against a woman who is his wife, former wife;
• against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, 

I was mainly referring to the relationship in question, because a few others here seemed to think it was a long relationship, and I think it is not long.

[OnMyWay]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

Don't you have similar laws in the USA - we certainly do in the UK?  I'm not sure why people in the Philippines shouldn't have similar protection, and that's before we even get into the question of the balance of power in relationships often found between locals and foreigners here.  

In the U.S., part of the consideration would be the length of the relationship.  For an unmarried couple, the "victim", female or male, of a short term relationship failure with financial considerations, would probably have to take it up in civil court.  A longer relationship might fall under common law with case precedents.

Added by edit.  As an example, if a guy meets a bargirl, and tells her "quit your job and spend the week with me", is that the same as a guy who meets a professional (teacher, CPA, call center) via online dating, and a week or two after physically meeting, tells her "quit your job, I'll take care of you"??

Edited July 20, 2023 by OnMyWay

[Mike J]

1 hour ago, OnMyWay said:

4 years of what???

Living together and declared as common law marriage.   Four years as opposed to five according to legislation in my post.

[JJReyes]

1 hour ago, OnMyWay said:

On 7/18/2023 at 7:14 AM, JJReyes said:

His former girlfriend worked at a call center about 4 years ago.  After a short period of cohabitation, he told his girlfriend to quit her job and replaced the income with a monthly stipend of P25,000.  Since then, he has found someone else to love.

I just read through the topic.  How long was the relationship, including before cohabitation and cohabitation?  Some seem to think it was 4 years and that does not seem correct.  The length of time matters.

Over five years relationship.  They dated before cohabitation.  The difficulty was her work hours were mostly in the evenings.  The inducement to give up her job was income replacement.  

[OnMyWay]

38 minutes ago, JJReyes said:

Over five years relationship.  They dated before cohabitation.  The difficulty was her work hours were mostly in the evenings.  The inducement to give up her job was income replacement.  

Ok, that clarifies it.  Others were assuming a long relationship, but I couldn't get that from your original post.

I'm on the fence.  I don't think a guy should promise to take care of someone if they are not committed to the relationship.  Again, I don't know the detail, but it sounds like they were not living together for most of the 5 years, moved in together, he didn't like it, and bailed.  He lost all the freedom he had and didn't like it.  Or just found out the day to day truth of how she is.

So at what point in the 5 years did he ask her to quit her job?

I actually have experience here.  My wife had a very good job as a CPA with an American chipmaking company when I met her in 2011.  Good money for a single Filipina mom.  We both thought long and hard about it before we decided she would quit.  She was there 8 years.  She finally quit at almost the same exact time that I took a package from my company.  Luckily, she had a B1/B2 visa from that job, and she came over to help me pack up and sell the house in May 2012.  I don't take a commitment like this lightly, and I was fully committed to supporting all the expenses of her and her daughter, forever.  We did not marry until 2015.  I know there was some risk there, but we have been together for 12 years now.  Like any couple, we have ups and downs, but if you are good people, you work the bumps out.

Sometimes we both regret her quitting.  It was a good job and she enjoyed it.  She misses working a job sometimes when taking care of the family can get tedious and the kids get unruly.  Our oldest, my stepdaughter, was raised mostly by a nanny when my wife was away for 12 hours a day.  Luckily the main nanny was good and we are still in contact with her today.  My wife also misses living in the bustling city.  I sometimes feel bad about having her quit a good career, but the money she made was not needed in my retirement plan, and the job would have tied us down, and restricted our travels.

[Hestecrefter]

22 hours ago, Possum said:

True. It took me and my wife a few years to understand that there is a legal system which exists for attorneys but no justice system for citizens except for those that have unlimited money and time. We don't so we avoid legal issues.  We understand why some who have little money seeking 'justice' employ back riders on motorcycles. While I understand their frustration I think it is a sad commentary on the country.

This is the sad truth about access to justice in most parts of the world.  As a young lawyer in Canada, I soon learned the truth in the saying "Justice is open to every man, just like the Ritz Hotel."  Also the wisdom in the saying "You have to be rich or crazy to start a lawsuit."  Living and working in both Canada and U.S., I saw that seeking justice cost money.  

Been awhile since I lived in the Phils, but still spend a fair bit of time there.  The legal system there is more time-consuming and seems to put up more roadblocks than what one sees in other countries, but, for the average Joe, best to steer clear of any of 'em, as Possum suggests.  Yes, that means, in some cases, one can suffer a wrong and there will be no corresponding right.  No remedy.  Just suck it up.

[Possum]

In the USA most states have what is called "common law" marriage. You live together for a certain period of time and the legal protections apply. Though the state of Florida doesn't have such a law they consider a couple residing together as if they are married for 7 years as married. So, the Philippine law is generous in comparison. Many years ago I had to go thru the divorce thing in Florida even though we were not legally married in the USA, the living together thing applied. I missed the 7 year cut off time by 6 months. According to the formula for alimony I was looking at $3000/mo alimony plus child support for one child. After numerous court ordered meditations we settled. Total cost to me was about $250000, but no alimony. All things considered I regret nothing. The reason divorce costs so much is it is worth it. While I sympathize with the guy and question his former girlfriends motive hopefully they settle. Stress is a killer.

[Mike J]

7 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

I don't think a guy should promise to take care of someone if they are not committed to the relationship.

Agree completely.  He is the one that baled out of the relationship.  

[hk blues]

17 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

In the U.S., part of the consideration would be the length of the relationship.  For an unmarried couple, the "victim", female or male, of a short term relationship failure with financial considerations, would probably have to take it up in civil court.  A longer relationship might fall under common law with case precedents.

Added by edit.  As an example, if a guy meets a bargirl, and tells her "quit your job and spend the week with me", is that the same as a guy who meets a professional (teacher, CPA, call center) via online dating, and a week or two after physically meeting, tells her "quit your job, I'll take care of you"??

It's not just in the USA that the length of relationship is relevant - almost critical I'd say - under the "common law" legislation. Clearly a short-term relationship won't enjoy the protection that a longer one would.  Defining short-term and long-term might be problematic though - interestingly under UK law there is no term specified, it's decided based on merits of each case.  A common misconception in the UK is 2 years is the period.