No Kids? Provide heaps more evidence

[mpottier]

Hi all!

This may be more of a statement than a question, but I thought I would voice this here. When sponsoring a spouse to Canada, the IRCC is still asking the basic 4 questions in the checklist, that if you answer "Yes" to all 4, then you don't have to initially provide heaps of extra proof of relationship. One of these questions is do you have kids. This is fine, but unnecessarily targets couples who can't have kids. For example my wife and I have been together for almost 10 years, but since we can't physically have kids (medical reasons), we are scrutinized and told there is more reason to doubt our relationship. I'm fine with the kids questions being there, but don't think it should hold as much weight as it does (honestly the other 3 alone are sufficient). Especially in this day and age, where many couples are choosing not to have kids, let alone those who can't. Lastly, this can be quite painful for many couples, and I do not look forward to having this conversation with my wife.

Do you think there is any way we can bring this to the attention of IRCC, or the Canadian government at large? I will write my MP, but just curious if there are any other ways to voice complaints?

 

[kcward7]

Hi all!

This may be more of a statement than a question, but I thought I would voice this here. When sponsoring a spouse to Canada, the IRCC is still asking the basic 4 questions in the checklist, that if you answer "Yes" to all 4, then you don't have to initially provide heaps of extra proof of relationship. One of these questions is do you have kids. This is fine, but unnecessarily targets couples who can't have kids. For example my wife and I have been together for almost 10 years, but since we can't physically have kids (medical reasons), we are scrutinized and told there is more reason to doubt our relationship. I'm fine with the kids questions being there, but don't think it should hold as much weight as it does (honestly the other 3 alone are sufficient). Especially in this day and age, where many couples are choosing not to have kids, let alone those who can't. Lastly, this can be quite painful for many couples, and I do not look forward to having this conversation with my wife.

Do you think there is any way we can bring this to the attention of IRCC, or the Canadian government at large? I will write my MP, but just curious if there are any other ways to voice complaints?

They specifically told you that because you do not have kids you will face scrutiny and more doubt because of that reason alone?

 

[monkeys89]

They specifically told you that because you do not have kids you will face scrutiny and more doubt because of that reason alone?

No, the objection is that having children appears to be a mark in the direction of "less burdensome application," when not everyone is able to have children. The OP's point in this case is medical difficulties, but same-sex couples would have similar challenges. Arguably, a decision factor that is in and of itself discriminatory is a problem - it would be like "if you do not have blue eyes, you must provide additional proof of a relationship."

 

[kcward7]

No, the objection is that having children appears to be a mark in the direction of "less burdensome application," when not everyone is able to have children. The OP's point in this case is medical difficulties, but same-sex couples would have similar challenges. Arguably, a decision factor that is in and of itself discriminatory is a problem - it would be like "if you do not have blue eyes, you must provide additional proof of a relationship."

I think you may have missed the point of my question. Asking the question about having kids in the application does not certainly mean that they unnecessarily target those who don't.

I am asking if there is real evidence that IRCC scrutinized this relationship for that reason alone. In other words I am trying to understand why OP is getting this impression or feels that question holds a certain weight.

We don't have kids and by no means had to provide any additional evidence nor were ever questioned or given any kind of impression like that, so I am curious to the source of OP's thoughts and if they are based on fact, or feeling.

In other words, when did IRCC communicate "we are scrutinized and told there is more reason to doubt our relationship" as quoted by OP, to them (more or less what I am wondering)?

 

[monkeys89]

You did have to provide additional evidence, if you checked "no" to one of the four questions - and having kids is one of the four questions. You are then required to submit photos and other proof of relationship and be subject to additional scrutiny, as CIC believes that having children, amongst other conditions, is evidence on the face of it that a relationship is genuine.

The OP's point was that having kids is not always possible, and that the need to then otherwise proof a genuine relationship if you do not have children is itself overly burdensome.

 

[monkeys89]

In other words, when did IRCC communicate "we are scrutinized and told there is more reason to doubt our relationship" as quoted by OP, to them (more or less what I am wondering)?

I don't believe that OP has applied yet, but I may be reading the post wrong.

 

[kcward7]

I don't believe that OP has applied yet, but I may be reading the post wrong.

Got it, understand the context, thanks! I thought OP was feeling individually targeted.

My response in that case is while you may not like it, it's up to IRCC what they feel is reasonable to ask for, and if you don't like it, don't apply. That's not meant to sound harsh, but it's a privilege, not a right to go through this process, despite what we don't like about it.

It's not as though the checklist is demanding that you justify your personal choices, medical struggles or whatever the case may be for not having children. I don't find anything about the further proof asked for unreasonable (that is personal opinion), especially because the question is "If you did not answer yes to all 4". They are not solely targeting those who answered no to the children question. For this reason I do not believe that IRCC views children as a legitimacy of relationship as they have not been hesitant in the past to deny applicants who had children but doubted other aspects.

I see the point, but it would be different if they said "if you answered no to the children question, you must provide xyz" - that would be specific targeting, in my opinion. I can understand how it feels that way though, so not downplaying that.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I think you may have missed the point of my question. Asking the question about having kids in the application does not certainly mean that they unnecessarily target those who don't.

I am asking if there is real evidence that IRCC scrutinized this relationship for that reason alone. In other words I am trying to understand why OP is getting this impression or feels that question holds a certain weight.

We don't have kids and by no means had to provide any additional evidence nor were ever questioned or given any kind of impression like that, so I am curious to the source of OP's thoughts and if they are based on fact, or feeling.

In other words, when did IRCC communicate "we are scrutinized and told there is more reason to doubt our relationship" as quoted by OP, to them (more or less what I am wondering)?

I think you have missed what OP is saying. There are 4 initial relationship proof questions on the spousal checklist, including "Do you have kids?"; if a couple answers Yes to all 4, they don't need to provide additional proofs. If they answer No to even one question, they then need to provide photos and further proofs.

For OP, they can say Yes to the 3 other questions but because of medical issues, they cannot have children and cannot answer Yes to that question and therefore must provide the additional proofs.

 

[kcward7]

I think you have missed what OP is saying. There are 4 initial relationship proof questions on the spousal checklist, including "Do you have kids?"; if a couple answers Yes to all 4, they don't need to provide additional proofs. If they answer No to even one question, they then need to provide photos and further proofs.

For OP, they can say Yes to the 3 other questions but because of medical issues, they cannot have children and cannot answer Yes to that question and therefore must provide the additional proofs.

I know that, it was clarified.

 

[canuck78]

Most couples apply soon after marriage and not 10 years later so you are not the typical applicant. We've seen many relationships questioned when couples have kids. I understand your annoyance but the forms or only part of the overall picture.

 

[mpottier]

Got it, understand the context, thanks! I thought OP was feeling individually targeted.

My response in that case is while you may not like it, it's up to IRCC what they feel is reasonable to ask for, and if you don't like it, don't apply. That's not meant to sound harsh, but it's a privilege, not a right to go through this process, despite what we don't like about it.

It's not as though the checklist is demanding that you justify your personal choices, medical struggles or whatever the case may be for not having children. I don't find anything about the further proof asked for unreasonable, especially because the question is "If you did not answer yes to all 4". They are not solely targeting those who answered no to the children question. For this reason I do not believe that IRCC views children as a legitimacy of relationship as they have not been hesitant in the past to deny applicants who had children but doubted other aspects.

I see the point, but it would be different if they said "if you answered no to the children question, you must provide xyz" - that would be specific targeting, in my opinion.

I fully understand you point, but I never bought into the "If I don't like it, don't do it" argument. I am a Canadian citizen using my government's services, this would never fly if I were taking advantage of another government service. I think my main point was how can we change it rather than just letting it sit uncontested. The other 3 questions are very much in the couple's control, while children is a natural process that is not in the couple's control. The additional documents are quite substantial and can very much be deemed insufficient by a random IRCC officer, while people with kids and who answered the other 3 questions with "YES" would have less chance of a delayed app, or even denied app, as they are deemed to be lower risk. My wife, will be devastated to see this in the application, and perhaps it is my protective instincts kicking in.

 

[kcward7]

I fully understand you point, but I never bought into the "If I don't like it, don't do it" argument. I am a Canadian citizen using my government's services, this would never fly if I were taking advantage of another government service. I think my main point was how can we change it rather than just letting it sit uncontested. The other 3 questions are very much in the couple's control, while children is a natural process that is not in the couple's control. The additional documents are quite substantial and can very much be deemed insufficient by a random IRCC officer, while people with kids and who answered the other 3 questions with "YES" would have less chance of a delayed app, or even denied app, as they are deemed to be lower risk. My wife, will be devastated to see this in the application, and perhaps it is my protective instincts kicking in.

I don't agree with what you're saying but I see the point you're making.

I believe the one other thing you would look into doing other than MP is initiating a petition. I could be wrong, but I know others have done this in the past. Not saying it's a good use of time just from a perspective of whether or not it would even be seen or actioned, but it could be something to look into. I admit I'm not overly familiar with the petition process, though.

 

[canuck78]

I fully understand you point, but I never bought into the "If I don't like it, don't do it" argument. I am a Canadian citizen using my government's services, this would never fly if I were taking advantage of another government service. I think my main point was how can we change it rather than just letting it sit uncontested. The other 3 questions are very much in the couple's control, while children is a natural process that is not in the couple's control. The additional documents are quite substantial and can very much be deemed insufficient by a random IRCC officer, while people with kids and who answered the other 3 questions with "YES" would have less chance of a delayed app, or even denied app, as they are deemed to be lower risk. My wife, will be devastated to see this in the application, and perhaps it is my protective instincts kicking in.

Not trying to be rude but I think you are being overly sensitive because of your infertility struggles. Other couples that decided not to have children may have no problem with the questions. I don't think it is a huge issue but if you want to spend your time petitioning the government to change things go ahead.

 

[mpottier]

Most couples apply soon after marriage and not 10 years later so you are not the typical applicant. We've seen many relationships questioned when couples have kids. I understand your annoyance but the forms or only part of the overall picture.

I'd be curious as to where those stats live? We chose the USA for myself a couple of year ago, as that is where my wife is from, so I got my green card. Also many couples meet abroad in other countries where they both may live for a number of years. I think if the couple are both from countries where the culture and opportunities are similar, it could really go either way (honestly we could have flipped a coin). From my experience we are not rare.

 

[kcward7]

Not trying to be rude but I think you are being overly sensitive because of your infertility struggles. Other couples that decided not to have children may have no problem with the questions. I don't think it is a huge issue but if you want to spend your time petitioning the government to change things go ahead.

I agree. To be quite frank I have struggled with infertility issues and the question doesn't bother me. I imagine a petition would most likely be a large time investment with little return as opposed to just accepting the application for what it is and moving forward from it, despite the feelings it brings up. A personal choice, though.