married to USC but still legally married to other
May 25th 2003, 5:04 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: married to USC but still legally married to other
rft_1992 wrote:
>
> thank you..what you all said was very helpful and informative,since
> her tourist visa is not expired yet until june,i think.i guess i have
> to advised her to comeback and file for the annulment....but,can she
> still return to US?and if her marriage has been annuled,can she still
> marry her USC..ok,may i say boyfriend without any hassles.Can these
> be possible?
>
> A lot of people had done these and was misinformed.At least if someone
> w/ the same situation or planning to do this will read this post,they
> will have an idea of what they are getting in to and thus avoid similar
> situation.
How many people do you know that have married people when they were
already married? Even in the PI, you can do this. If she leaves the
US, she may have trouble getting back in. She should seek the advice of
a lawyer, NOW. If she entered in June 2002, then her extension is about
up. Plus, since she has spent 1 year here, there is little doubt that
she will be suspected of trying live in the US on tourist visa and will
question her about her ties to her home country. If she needs to apply
for a new visa, it asks if she has a husband or fiance in the US.
Additionally, you are required to report to BCIS if you have committed a
crime, even if you were never caught. Better to clear up the mess ASAP.
>
> thank you..what you all said was very helpful and informative,since
> her tourist visa is not expired yet until june,i think.i guess i have
> to advised her to comeback and file for the annulment....but,can she
> still return to US?and if her marriage has been annuled,can she still
> marry her USC..ok,may i say boyfriend without any hassles.Can these
> be possible?
>
> A lot of people had done these and was misinformed.At least if someone
> w/ the same situation or planning to do this will read this post,they
> will have an idea of what they are getting in to and thus avoid similar
> situation.
How many people do you know that have married people when they were
already married? Even in the PI, you can do this. If she leaves the
US, she may have trouble getting back in. She should seek the advice of
a lawyer, NOW. If she entered in June 2002, then her extension is about
up. Plus, since she has spent 1 year here, there is little doubt that
she will be suspected of trying live in the US on tourist visa and will
question her about her ties to her home country. If she needs to apply
for a new visa, it asks if she has a husband or fiance in the US.
Additionally, you are required to report to BCIS if you have committed a
crime, even if you were never caught. Better to clear up the mess ASAP.
May 25th 2003, 5:07 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: married to USC but still legally married to other
lairdside wrote:
> Originally posted by El
> I thought she may have to file for a divorce of some sort from her bf
> beofre they could marry - and what fun that would look like too....
>
She can't get a divorce from her US BF, since they aren't legally
married. It might be difficult to get out of this mess.
> Originally posted by El
> I thought she may have to file for a divorce of some sort from her bf
> beofre they could marry - and what fun that would look like too....
>
She can't get a divorce from her US BF, since they aren't legally
married. It might be difficult to get out of this mess.
May 25th 2003, 5:38 pm
#18
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Re: married to USC but still legally married to other
Originally posted by Mrtravel
lairdside wrote:
> Originally posted by El
> I thought she may have to file for a divorce of some sort from her bf
> beofre they could marry - and what fun that would look like too....
>
She can't get a divorce from her US BF, since they aren't legally
married. It might be difficult to get out of this mess.
lairdside wrote:
> Originally posted by El
> I thought she may have to file for a divorce of some sort from her bf
> beofre they could marry - and what fun that would look like too....
>
She can't get a divorce from her US BF, since they aren't legally
married. It might be difficult to get out of this mess.
Last edited by Dekka's Angel; May 25th 2003 at 5:45 pm.
May 25th 2003, 6:04 pm
#19
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8
Re: married to USC but still legally married to other
Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
That's not true. One of the "fault" based reasons for divorce is bigamy, in those states that still provide for "fault" based divorces. The fact that the marriage is void from its inception does not mean that you can always avoid having to do the legal footwork associated with getting an annulment and/or divorce. Only a family lawyer from the OP's sister's state can say for sure what she needs to do.
That's not true. One of the "fault" based reasons for divorce is bigamy, in those states that still provide for "fault" based divorces. The fact that the marriage is void from its inception does not mean that you can always avoid having to do the legal footwork associated with getting an annulment and/or divorce. Only a family lawyer from the OP's sister's state can say for sure what she needs to do.
May 26th 2003, 12:53 am
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
A big obstacle, potentially. The OP's sister needs a lawyer, and needs one badly. Right now, she has not overstayed her tourist visa (good news, there!) but she appears to have committed a crime of moral turpitude on US soil while here by virtue of her tourist visa - something I imagine the BCIS might well consider a Very Big Deal even if she and her "second husband" do not.
As described (a person, with knowledge that she was still legally married at the time, willfully celebrated a legal marriage with someone in the US), the OP's sister appears to have committed the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is absolutely, positively, a crime of moral turpitude. For *all* purposes - as has been the case ever since the moldy English common law was first written down. Whether it is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor doesn't change its essential character (as I understand it, the question of deportability from the US may turn on that distinction though).
Bigamy is definitely on the "short list" of "Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship and Sexual Morality" used by the BCIS and State Department to determine admissibility though, so if she's convicted of it or ever admits to the "essential elements of the crime" (whether it is a crime will be determined by the laws in the place where the crime was allegedly committed, but it is a crime in every state of the union) she is inadmissible into the US. I do not know whether this type of inadmissibility if found allows for a waiver. Obviously, I have to defer to the immigration folks on this board on that.
The OP's sister's options for straightening this are not as broad as those available to folks in the UK and other places. There is, bluntly, NO "divorce" in the Philippines. In other words, when they say that marriage is for life, they really do mean it.
The closest thing the OP's sister can get to a divorce is a certificate from the Philippine government confirming that she can remarry because a non-Filipino spouse has divorced *her* outside the Philippines. But if her husband is Filipino (nationality, not ethnicity), it doesn't matter what country issues the divorce - it is not recognized. If she initiates it, no matter what country, it is not recognized. The divorce of a Filipino spouse by a non-Filipino spouse outside the Philippines is the only circumstance in which the term "divorce" has any meaning under Philippine law.
Failing this, the only option she has (unless she fits into that narrow exception) is an annulment. The Philippine law allowing annulment was originally written in a way such that annulments were quite rare and very hard to get. That's the bad news. The good news is, of course, that reality of married life in the Philippines (and everywhere else) is such that "nature has found a way" to handle this very harsh marriage law through amendments made in it a few years ago.
There are three types of annulment most commonly used where there really was a valid marriage but now one person wants out of it legally. The most common is under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which provides that "A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." Article 45 annulment works if at the time of entry into the marriage there was: (a) fraud not ratified by the defrauded spouse through continuing to live with the spouse after knowledge; (b) unsound mind unless sanity was regained during the marriage and the sane spouse remains after sanity; (c) force/coercion/duress unless it has ended and the forced spouse remained in the marriage after the end; (d) no parental consent for spouses between 18-21 years old until the marriage survives the parties turning 21 (e) physical incapacity to consummate which has not been cured and is not curable, or (f) one partner had a "serious" sexually transmitted disease that is not curable. Finally, there is Article 41, where a spouse has been gone gone for more than 4 years *and* the one remaining has a "well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead" (but it has a risky wildcard -- your old spouse can come back someday and file an affidavit saying "No I'm Not Dead", which voids the *new* marriage unless there is a final judgment of annulment already existing).
Perversely, the rife corruption present in much of the Philippine governmental structure, which has led to the US basically refusing to issue tourist visas to single women of marriageble age from the Philippines absent extraordinary circumstances (thus begging the question of how the OP's sister even got one, but that's a discussion for another time) actually works in favor of those trying to exit their marriages through annulment. So, annulments are now far easier to get than the law would indicate -- what I hear from friends is that they just take time, a psychologist willing to examine the parties and testify in favor (psychological evaluations are required), the attorney general's office of the Philippines not objecting (it can elect to and, in some cases such as a default in answering the petition for annulment, is actually *required* to), and a judge saying "marriage annulled" (sadly, I hear that graft to further all but the judicial step is common). 1-2 years for this entire process is not an unreasonable estimate from what I understand from friends from that country. It goes a bit faster if both spouses are working together to make things happen (itself a big no-no which if discovered will preclude annulment).
Finally, fixing things in the Philippines doesn't mean they are automatically fixed here. The OP's sister may require a decree of annulment or divorce to counteract the effect of a licensed US marriage. While all states treat bigamous marriages as void ab initio (from the moment it is entered into) this doesn't automatically mean the OP's sister can just pretend without more that her US marriage never happened. She needs a family lawyer in her state to tell her definitively whether she can truly just "walk away" with no consequence, no paperwork and no risk, or whether a filing for an annulment or divorce is required.
This is a messy situation, no doubt. Right now, she's married but she's not married. She has, if the facts are as described simply, committed a crime on US soil. Using a tourist visa. Making her possibly deportable. As well as making her inadmissible if she's convicted or discloses it (which of course is its own Catch 22; she will at some point have to either disclose prior marriages or not, under oath, and not disclosing it doesn't mean it won't be discovered if she really entered into a licensed marriage here in the US). Problem. Big. Lawyer. Now.
A big obstacle, potentially. The OP's sister needs a lawyer, and needs one badly. Right now, she has not overstayed her tourist visa (good news, there!) but she appears to have committed a crime of moral turpitude on US soil while here by virtue of her tourist visa - something I imagine the BCIS might well consider a Very Big Deal even if she and her "second husband" do not.
As described (a person, with knowledge that she was still legally married at the time, willfully celebrated a legal marriage with someone in the US), the OP's sister appears to have committed the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is absolutely, positively, a crime of moral turpitude. For *all* purposes - as has been the case ever since the moldy English common law was first written down. Whether it is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor doesn't change its essential character (as I understand it, the question of deportability from the US may turn on that distinction though).
Bigamy is definitely on the "short list" of "Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship and Sexual Morality" used by the BCIS and State Department to determine admissibility though, so if she's convicted of it or ever admits to the "essential elements of the crime" (whether it is a crime will be determined by the laws in the place where the crime was allegedly committed, but it is a crime in every state of the union) she is inadmissible into the US. I do not know whether this type of inadmissibility if found allows for a waiver. Obviously, I have to defer to the immigration folks on this board on that.
The OP's sister's options for straightening this are not as broad as those available to folks in the UK and other places. There is, bluntly, NO "divorce" in the Philippines. In other words, when they say that marriage is for life, they really do mean it.
The closest thing the OP's sister can get to a divorce is a certificate from the Philippine government confirming that she can remarry because a non-Filipino spouse has divorced *her* outside the Philippines. But if her husband is Filipino (nationality, not ethnicity), it doesn't matter what country issues the divorce - it is not recognized. If she initiates it, no matter what country, it is not recognized. The divorce of a Filipino spouse by a non-Filipino spouse outside the Philippines is the only circumstance in which the term "divorce" has any meaning under Philippine law.
Failing this, the only option she has (unless she fits into that narrow exception) is an annulment. The Philippine law allowing annulment was originally written in a way such that annulments were quite rare and very hard to get. That's the bad news. The good news is, of course, that reality of married life in the Philippines (and everywhere else) is such that "nature has found a way" to handle this very harsh marriage law through amendments made in it a few years ago.
There are three types of annulment most commonly used where there really was a valid marriage but now one person wants out of it legally. The most common is under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which provides that "A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." Article 45 annulment works if at the time of entry into the marriage there was: (a) fraud not ratified by the defrauded spouse through continuing to live with the spouse after knowledge; (b) unsound mind unless sanity was regained during the marriage and the sane spouse remains after sanity; (c) force/coercion/duress unless it has ended and the forced spouse remained in the marriage after the end; (d) no parental consent for spouses between 18-21 years old until the marriage survives the parties turning 21 (e) physical incapacity to consummate which has not been cured and is not curable, or (f) one partner had a "serious" sexually transmitted disease that is not curable. Finally, there is Article 41, where a spouse has been gone gone for more than 4 years *and* the one remaining has a "well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead" (but it has a risky wildcard -- your old spouse can come back someday and file an affidavit saying "No I'm Not Dead", which voids the *new* marriage unless there is a final judgment of annulment already existing).
Perversely, the rife corruption present in much of the Philippine governmental structure, which has led to the US basically refusing to issue tourist visas to single women of marriageble age from the Philippines absent extraordinary circumstances (thus begging the question of how the OP's sister even got one, but that's a discussion for another time) actually works in favor of those trying to exit their marriages through annulment. So, annulments are now far easier to get than the law would indicate -- what I hear from friends is that they just take time, a psychologist willing to examine the parties and testify in favor (psychological evaluations are required), the attorney general's office of the Philippines not objecting (it can elect to and, in some cases such as a default in answering the petition for annulment, is actually *required* to), and a judge saying "marriage annulled" (sadly, I hear that graft to further all but the judicial step is common). 1-2 years for this entire process is not an unreasonable estimate from what I understand from friends from that country. It goes a bit faster if both spouses are working together to make things happen (itself a big no-no which if discovered will preclude annulment).
Finally, fixing things in the Philippines doesn't mean they are automatically fixed here. The OP's sister may require a decree of annulment or divorce to counteract the effect of a licensed US marriage. While all states treat bigamous marriages as void ab initio (from the moment it is entered into) this doesn't automatically mean the OP's sister can just pretend without more that her US marriage never happened. She needs a family lawyer in her state to tell her definitively whether she can truly just "walk away" with no consequence, no paperwork and no risk, or whether a filing for an annulment or divorce is required.
This is a messy situation, no doubt. Right now, she's married but she's not married. She has, if the facts are as described simply, committed a crime on US soil. Using a tourist visa. Making her possibly deportable. As well as making her inadmissible if she's convicted or discloses it (which of course is its own Catch 22; she will at some point have to either disclose prior marriages or not, under oath, and not disclosing it doesn't mean it won't be discovered if she really entered into a licensed marriage here in the US). Problem. Big. Lawyer. Now.
If this lady walked into my office, I would mention the possiblity of bigamy -- but this is one of those situations where that although the potential exists, the probability of criminal prosecution is slight -- I think that is reserved for those men who have multiple "families" at one time.
I would focus on getting that marriage in the PI dissolved under Stateside law and then having a valid marriage here.
Complicated, but doable. Let me put it this way -- been there, done that. But you are right, there are potential problems.
May 26th 2003, 1:23 am
#21
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
If this lady walked into my office, I would mention the possiblity of bigamy -- but this is one of those situations where that although the potential exists, the probability of criminal prosecution is slight -- I think that is reserved for those men who have multiple "families" at one time.
I would focus on getting that marriage in the PI dissolved under Stateside law and then having a valid marriage here.
Complicated, but doable. Let me put it this way -- been there, done that. But you are right, there are potential problems.
Hi:
If this lady walked into my office, I would mention the possiblity of bigamy -- but this is one of those situations where that although the potential exists, the probability of criminal prosecution is slight -- I think that is reserved for those men who have multiple "families" at one time.
I would focus on getting that marriage in the PI dissolved under Stateside law and then having a valid marriage here.
Complicated, but doable. Let me put it this way -- been there, done that. But you are right, there are potential problems.
May 26th 2003, 1:34 am
#22
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
If this lady walked into my office, I would mention the possiblity of bigamy -- but this is one of those situations where that although the potential exists, the probability of criminal prosecution is slight -- I think that is reserved for those men who have multiple "families" at one time.
Hi:
If this lady walked into my office, I would mention the possiblity of bigamy -- but this is one of those situations where that although the potential exists, the probability of criminal prosecution is slight -- I think that is reserved for those men who have multiple "families" at one time.
Even those "multiple family" ones (polygamists) usually get arrested and prosecuted only when the paterfamilias does something "in the State's face"....like brag in the media about his 5 wives and 25 children and their living situation including their heavy reliance on public assistance.
May 26th 2003, 4:43 am
#23
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
If the lady's sister has her previous marriage dissolved under US law and marries in the US does it *matter* that she will still have been considered to have commited bigamy in the PI if she never returns?
May 26th 2003, 5:00 am
#24
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,477
Originally posted by lairdside
If the lady's sister has her previous marriage dissolved under US law and marries in the US does it *matter* that she will still have been considered to have commited bigamy in the PI if she never returns?
If the lady's sister has her previous marriage dissolved under US law and marries in the US does it *matter* that she will still have been considered to have commited bigamy in the PI if she never returns?
Rete
May 26th 2003, 5:03 am
#25
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Originally posted by Rete
I supppose that would depend on the US Consulate's take on the divorce and subsequent remarriage. After all she now wishes to bring her children to the US. I understand that the divorce would be legal in the US but if PI doesn't recognize it, will the US Consulate when her USC husband petitions for the I-130 for her children?
Rete
I supppose that would depend on the US Consulate's take on the divorce and subsequent remarriage. After all she now wishes to bring her children to the US. I understand that the divorce would be legal in the US but if PI doesn't recognize it, will the US Consulate when her USC husband petitions for the I-130 for her children?
Rete
Of course, the children.
This thing just gets messier and messier
May 26th 2003, 9:18 am
#26
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Originally posted by lairdside
If the lady's sister has her previous marriage dissolved under US law and marries in the US does it *matter* that she will still have been considered to have commited bigamy in the PI if she never returns?
If the lady's sister has her previous marriage dissolved under US law and marries in the US does it *matter* that she will still have been considered to have commited bigamy in the PI if she never returns?
I'm wracking my brain trying to imagine a US court exercising jurisdiction over her first marriage at all and giving her a decree saying "divorced from Husband 1 and free to marry" without any jurisdiction over her first husband, who is still alive and not physically in the US. He does not appear to have submitted himself or his marriage to the jurisdiction of a US court and without that a US Court has extremely limited power over that marriage. I trust Folinskyinla who hints this is doable without her having to return to the Philippines, but this is definitely a legal contortionist act that has so many conditions precedent for it succeeding that it's mind-boggling.
Last edited by Dekka's Angel; May 26th 2003 at 9:50 am.
May 26th 2003, 9:47 am
#27
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Originally posted by lairdside
Good point Rete.
Of course, the children.
This thing just gets messier and messier
Good point Rete.
Of course, the children.
This thing just gets messier and messier
May 26th 2003, 12:10 pm
#28
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Fancy taking a precedent setting case on Angel ? 
It's a bit easier with the US and UK because of the reciprocity. A US court does have jurisdiction for the divorce itself with regard to both parties, even in a petition divorce as long as one is a resident of the District in which the petition is filed. It does not have jurisdiction over the assets or children if they are outside of the US - except by both parties submission to the court's jurisdiction.
Under UK Law there are three parts to the "Divorce" , the divorce or dissolution of the union, the assets and the children. They have the whole Nisi and Absolut thingy too
Old fashioned eh?
I understand what you mean about the bigmay being commited in the US - because that is where the 2nd "marriage" took place. I also thought though that as far as I know marriages in both countries are recognised in both countries if they comply to certain criteria? So, PI would consider her second "marriage" to be bigamous if they found out about it and even if she was able to "fix" things in the US this presumably would not carry in the PI?
It's been a while since I read anything about Marriage/Divorce reciprocity (thankfully)... I did enough of that a while ago!
It's a bit easier with the US and UK because of the reciprocity. A US court does have jurisdiction for the divorce itself with regard to both parties, even in a petition divorce as long as one is a resident of the District in which the petition is filed. It does not have jurisdiction over the assets or children if they are outside of the US - except by both parties submission to the court's jurisdiction.
Under UK Law there are three parts to the "Divorce" , the divorce or dissolution of the union, the assets and the children. They have the whole Nisi and Absolut thingy too
Old fashioned eh?
I understand what you mean about the bigmay being commited in the US - because that is where the 2nd "marriage" took place. I also thought though that as far as I know marriages in both countries are recognised in both countries if they comply to certain criteria? So, PI would consider her second "marriage" to be bigamous if they found out about it and even if she was able to "fix" things in the US this presumably would not carry in the PI?
It's been a while since I read anything about Marriage/Divorce reciprocity (thankfully)... I did enough of that a while ago!
May 26th 2003, 12:11 pm
#29
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
BTW hope those lazy no good Aussies get their fingers out after Memorial Day and you hear something really soon
May 26th 2003, 1:14 pm
#30
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Originally posted by lairdside
BTW hope those lazy no good Aussies get their fingers out after Memorial Day and you hear something really soon
BTW hope those lazy no good Aussies get their fingers out after Memorial Day and you hear something really soon
So we sent off another fax today. I will calendar it for next Tuesday Oz Time (next Monday is a public holiday for them, the Queen's Birthday or something like that) and hopefully will have an answer by then confirming that they have received the Packet 3 checklist and have set an interview date.
