supervisa for toxic inlaws - PLEASE HELP

[GandiBaat]

yes i bet there are. let us talk to the first nation people....
anyways. dont want this to turn into a Canada Vs third world discussion. Ye,s Canada has laws, better system, people have rights etc. etc and sometimes it dances to the tunes of .....
above all it aint Utopia.

So historical injustice justifies NOT helping a person in a potential abusive situation, eh?

 

[asaeed100]

So historical injustice justifies NOT helping a person in a potential abusive situation, eh?

dude may be the husbands parents need help and support.
you seem to have become the prosecutor, judge and the jury in one go.
.

 

[GandiBaat]

dude may be the husbands parents need help and support.
you seem to have become the prosecutor, judge and the jury in one go.

I am none of the above. Infact all I am suggesting is that the OP (with or without her husband) deserves a meeting with a counsellor.

And since she is NOT feeling comfortable in inviting the said in-laws she SHOULD not be coerced into doing that. After all, marriage does not mean writing away your basic right to your salary / income that you have earned. Any domestic pressure to make her do with that property / money is wrong -- in the eyes of law for sure and in the eyes of society she is currently living (as much as I know).

Its not a question of "who is wrong or right in the family", it is a question of simple free will and freedom. Freedom to your own income and money. It does not matter if the said person is right or wrong (from a family point of view), she cann't be coerced into doing something she does not agrees to.

 

[canuck78]

i am sorry. not the primary focus of this forum regardless of the situation.

from a few paragraphs and without knowing the other side of the story. you seem to have special gift of understanding the entire situation

perhaps this lady is the root cause of the problem. how can anyone here possibly know.

having said that, your comments on "rights" seem to revolve around your own personal views/topics.
you seem to be fond of cherry picking

A minor PR coming back to Canada, has all the RIGHTs to attend college regardless his parents contributed to the taxes etc

yet for numbers of years you have been misdirecting/discouraging every kid that has come to this forum asking for help.

i will take all your advice with a grain of salt.

i will not contribute further to this thread.

Provide advice about how to return but I don’t a

i am sorry. not the primary focus of this forum regardless of the situation.

from a few paragraphs and without knowing the other side of the story. you seem to have special gift of understanding the entire situation

perhaps this lady is the root cause of the problem. how can anyone here possibly know.

having said that, your comments on "rights" seem to revolve around your own personal views/topics.
you seem to be fond of cherry picking

A minor PR coming back to Canada, has all the RIGHTs to attend college regardless his parents contributed to the taxes etc

yet for numbers of years you have been misdirecting/discouraging every kid that has come to this forum asking for help.

i will take all your advice with a grain of salt.

i will not contribute further to this thread.

Provide advice about how minors are able to return all the time. Doesn’t mean that I have to agree with the use of the loophole especially when a family planned on using the loophole. Your situation is very different and much more complex. I object to adults who haven’t met their RO being able to join their children in Canada if they have been approved for H&C.

The woman is the one with status in Canada and is asking the questions so that is who we are providing suggestions and advice for.

 

[canuck78]

dude may be the husbands parents need help and support.
you seem to have become the prosecutor, judge and the jury in one go.
.

Why don’t you believe the woman.

 

[canuck78]

dude may be the husbands parents need help and support.
you seem to have become the prosecutor, judge and the jury in one go.
.

Not sure you are ignoring the woman’s reports of abuse, being forced to sign the supervisa application and feeling uncomfortable in her own home. You are taking the side of the in-laws when you haven’t even heard from. Howhard is it to believe that this woman is telling the truth. She has posted on the forum before and it seems like the situation has remained the same.

 

[asaeed100]

I am none of the above. Infact all I am suggesting is that the OP (with or without her husband) deserves a meeting with a counsellor.

And since she is NOT feeling comfortable in inviting the said in-laws she SHOULD not be coerced into doing that. After all, marriage does not mean writing away your basic right to your salary / income that you have earned. Any domestic pressure to make her do with that property / money is wrong -- in the eyes of law for sure and in the eyes of society she is currently living (as much as I know).

Its not a question of "who is wrong or right in the family", it is a question of simple free will and freedom. Freedom to your own income and money. It does not matter if the said person is right or wrong (from a family point of view), she cann't be coerced into doing something she does not agrees to.

again. how can you be so sure what is being written is the absolute truth.
. a person has rights and so does the parents. let it go bro

 

[asaeed100]

Provide advice about how to return but I don’t a


Provide advice about how minors are able to return all the time. Doesn’t mean that I have to agree with the use of the loophole especially when a family planned on using the loophole. Your situation is very different and much more complex. I object to adults who haven’t met their RO being able to join their children in Canada if they have been approved for H&C.

The woman is the one with status in Canada and is asking the questions so that is who we are providing suggestions and advice for.

Dr Phill, we are talking about "Rights" not loopholes. if you were the one making the laws, i would accept the terminology. i am sure they know all about such loopholes. let them worry about it.

you should be more focused on correcting yourself rather than worrying about someone, you dont even know.
tell me which wife is ever happy with her in-laws.?
why would i take sides without knowing the whole situation and listening to both sides?
btw the idea of sabotaging the application shows the true mind-set of the person.

 

[Islander216]

Dr Phill, we are talking about "Rights" not loopholes. if you were the one making the laws, i would accept the terminology. i am sure they know all about such loopholes. let them worry about it.

you should be more focused on correcting yourself rather than worrying about someone, you dont even know.
tell me which wife is ever happy with her in-laws.?
why would i take sides without knowing the whole situation and listening to both sides?
btw the idea of sabotaging the application shows the true mind-set of the person.

I see a lot of judgment from you in particular, and unfortunately it's always apologists like you who end up gaslighting women who face abuse in other countries. It's always about dismissing the feelings of women in her situation, and frankly it's appalling.

Obviously, in our limited capacity, all we know is OP's side of the situation. But everything she says is consistent with how many women face abuse, unless you're saying she's making it up, i don't see why we shouldn't believe her. Based on that, she's being provided advice on how to proceed.

The only truth we know for certain is that she feels disempowered in her marriage, and feels she's getting railroaded in her relationship to acquiesce to being party to her inlaws supervisa application.

All i will say, plain and simple, without any judgment, is she shouldn't and if she wishes to withdraw her support for the appllication, she should. But she has to accept that it's going to have an adverse effect on her relationship with her husband and she has to be prepared for that. It's important for her to know how things work in Canada with regards to her rights in a separation or divorce.

She also obviously needs to look into getting relationship counselling and legal representation. All this other nonsense you're peddling is irrelevant.

 

[asaeed100]

I see a lot of judgment from you in particular, and unfortunately it's always apologists like you who end up gaslighting women who face abuse in other countries. It's always about dismissing the feelings of women in her situation, and frankly it's appalling.

Obviously, in our limited capacity, all we know is OP's side of the situation. But everything she says is consistent with how many women face abuse, unless you're saying she's making it up, i don't see why we shouldn't believe her. Based on that, she's being provided advice on how to proceed.

The only truth we know for certain is that she feels disempowered in her marriage, and feels she's getting railroaded in her relationship to acquiesce to being party to her inlaws supervisa application.

All i will say, plain and simple, without any judgment, is she shouldn't and if she wishes to withdraw her support for the appllication, she should.

She also obviously needs to look into getting relationship counselling and legal representation.

"She also obviously needs to look into getting relationship counseling and legal representation". Yes agreed. as simple as that. thats what many are saying.

i couldnt believe when i saw some of the VIP contributors were suggesting her to get a separation. she has rights and rights are demanded in a court of law.
not on a channel like this.

btw she became a member in 2013, first and only post in oct 2019 on this issue only. she seems to be using this forum to learn and gain her knowledge. how many immigrant or applicants know of GCMS notes!

 

[asaeed100]

BTW - Canadian law largely finds in favour of the mother in the case of separation / divorce when it comes to the custody of the children. You can see statistics here:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/stat2000/p4.html

Your husband is the one at a disadvantage here - not you.

@scylla wonderful advice really!
let us say she gets separated, get sole custody of her children and even wins child support
Hurrah !
now this is what might happen

her children will grow up without their real father around. we know how that works out.
children suffer the most in such cases

he might even go back home, get married again, start a new life with his young wife, and take his toxic parents with him. come back again and settle in US or another province etc. he will a lot better off unless he loves his kids too much. And so much for paying child support and the ruling and the case etc will be a total waste of time. or he might even runway before the case even begin.

she will end up trying to raise the kids all by herself, while paying the bills etc
there might be even huge lawyers bills that she might have to deal with for the rest of her life
she will need a nanny as she will be too busy trying to make a living
she wont be able to find a decent husband or partner again.
i mean who in the right mind would want to marry someone with excess baggage
once the kids are grown up, she will find herself in the same situation as her toxic in-laws

few years down the road while playing candy crush on her broken phone in a nursing home somewhere while waiting for a visit from one of her kids, she will be wondering why she even listened to some strangers on the net!

are you okay with that scylla?

all she had to do was to serve tea and biscuits on time and tried to make it work

 

[GandiBaat]

again. how can you be so sure what is being written is the absolute truth.
. a person has rights and so does the parents. let it go bro

Its as simple : If she is tell truth then she is facing a potentially abusive relationship which puts her and her children in the potential harms way. If she is telling a lie, then it puts her in-laws and her husband in legal soup; if they are able to prove (say in a court) otherwise then it puts her in legal soup. I find NOT believing her more potentially damaging as it can put her and her children in a real harm's way.

That said counsellors and social workers are trained to assess the situation. An advice to approach them is apt.

Lastly, lets say she just does NOT want to support her in-law's super visa. Its that simple. Does not matter if she is telling truth or lies but she cann't be coereced to give the consent to support them. That is the trouble. Had she not been coerced then she would not be here.

 

[asaeed100]

Its as simple : If she is tell truth then she is facing a potentially abusive relationship which puts her and her children in the potential harms way. If she is telling a lie, then it puts her in-laws and her husband in legal soup; if they are able to prove (say in a court) otherwise then it puts her in legal soup. I find NOT believing her more potentially damaging as it can put her and her children in a real harm's way.

That said counsellors and social workers are trained to assess the situation. An advice to approach them is apt.

Lastly, lets say she just does NOT want to support her in-law's super visa. Its that simple. Does not matter if she is telling truth or lies but she cann't be coereced to give the consent to support them. That is the trouble. Had she not been coerced then she would not be here.

it is she said or he said kind of a situation
yes the husband beat her up regularly , tied to the bed post locked the room, taped her mouth, put a gun to her head and made her sign the app.
cool down bro. you are taking it too far without knowing much on the situation
i dont think putting your marriage on the line is a wise decision because your in laws are bad#
if that was the case half of the world marriages would end up in divorces
kindly change your signarture. doesnt suit you

 

[GandiBaat]

it is she said or he said kind of a situation

No, its not that. Its this much at its core : She DOES NOT WANT to support super visa of in-laws. Thats all. Proof is her first post. It ends there.

yes the husband beat her up regularly , tied to the bed post locked the room, taped her mouth, put a gun to her head and made her sign the app.

Coercion take many form. Violence is NOT the only way. Mental coercion very much a thing. To be honest, how coercion happened is not important. What is important is that a person has to do something she does not agree to and fears that not agreeing can have consequences. That is the very definition of coercion. Her act of reaching out to a public forum is a proof enough. If she had agreed there was no need for her to even talk about such a personal family matter in public.

cool down bro.

After writing all those what you wrote about "taped" etc. I guess I don't need to say who needs to cool down man...

you are taking it too far without knowing jack schit.

Here is what we all know: A person claiming to be a woman has posted that she does not want to support super visa of her in-laws but fears retaliation if she does not comply.
This means she does not agree to supporting super-visa. This means if the super-visa application happened and it was with her support, she was forced to provide it. Thats all! Had this not being the case, she would not have approached a public forum. See? Its not that hard.

Coercing and force in a relationship is a sign of abuse and needs proper consideration by a counsellor or social worker. Which is mostly was has been suggested. We don't need to know every last detail to suggest someone to seek help. Thats all! If someone tells you that they fear that they are having an issue, you advise them to seek proper help, don't you?

i dont think putting your marriage on the line is a wise decision because your in laws are bad#

Thats her decision. People here only told her what are her options. We are not a family court. We don't make judgements. But we can suggest someone to reach out to proper people who can help and we can tell what are the options she may see in front of her. Possibly what can be their effects and side-effects.

if that was the case half of the world marriages would end up in divorces

Marriages are NOT meant to force people to keep in marriage, if a person feels abused, they should seek help and if it takes ending a relationship then so be it. Abuse is never acceptable. Sometimes conselling helps. Sometimes it takes more than that. Abuse is NEVER the answer. Irrespective of anything.

kindly change your signarture. doesnt suit you

Nothing to do with you. Its a matter between me and Him. You are not a party to it.

 

[asaeed100]

No, its not that. Its this much at its core : She DOES NOT WANT to support super visa of in-laws. Thats all. Proof is her first post. It ends there.


Coercion take many form. Violence is NOT the only way. Mental coercion very much a thing. To be honest, how coercion happened is not important. What is important is that a person has to do something she does not agree to and fears that not agreeing can have consequences. That is the very definition of coercion. Her act of reaching out to a public forum is a proof enough. If she had agreed there was no need for her to even talk about such a personal family matter in public.


After writing all those what you wrote about "taped" etc. I guess I don't need to say who needs to cool down man...


Here is what we all know: A person claiming to be a woman has posted that she does not want to support super visa of her in-laws but fears retaliation if she does not comply.
This means she does not agree to supporting super-visa. This means if the super-visa application happened and it was with her support, she was forced to provide it. Thats all! Had this not being the case, she would not have approached a public forum. See? Its not that hard.

Coercing and force in a relationship is a sign of abuse and needs proper consideration by a counsellor or social worker. Which is mostly was has been suggested. We don't need to know every last detail to suggest someone to seek help. Thats all! If someone tells you that they fear that they are having an issue, you advise them to seek proper help, don't you?


Thats her decision. People here only told her what are her options. We are not a family court. We don't make judgements. But we can suggest someone to reach out to proper people who can help and we can tell what are the options she may see in front of her. Possibly what can be their effects and side-effects.


Marriages are NOT meant to force people to keep in marriage, if a person feels abused, they should seek help and if it takes ending a relationship then so be it. Abuse is never acceptable. Sometimes conselling helps. Sometimes it takes more than that. Abuse is NEVER the answer. Irrespective of anything.


Nothing to do with you. Its a matter between me and Him. You are not a party to it.

thanks for the reply.
you make it sound so nice and easy sitting behind the keyboard
forgetting the dire consequences esp. when it involves children

also involving a person who is or was about to sabotage an application
mis-representation, is a not a good idea that leads to 5 y ban etc
this is what we have seen lectures on time and time again
yet many of these advisers are supporting such a person
it is quite clear the situation is not new
it just re-ignited b/c of SV app.
there is more to the story
like i said she chose to come here rather than getting proper counseling
she was just trying to figure out if there was a way they can trace actions back to her
and you and others fell for it.