I have enough wealth/income to gamble on mail-order brides. Where should I look and how should I go about it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zeknichov

 
Banned
I'm 33yo and I'm now making $130k/yr in a small town (4000 people) in Canada. I own a 4 bedroom house and I'm ready to settle down.

I haven't had any success with Canadian women. I just find Canadian women too "independent", crass and what they want out of relationships doesn't work for me. I don't do 50/50 for relationships, it has to be me in charge and she has to be fine with that.

I'm looking for a stay at home housewife who wants to have children, home-school the children (I don't need her to be smart but she needs to read/write/speak English and be able to follow my instruction so she can home-school according to my direction), cook, clean and focus her attention on my needs. That means she needs to like sex and won't see sex as a chore but rather something she wants to engage in. A woman who thinks Corinthians and Timothy in the Bible is accurate in portraying a woman's role would be good. On a /10 scale, I'd say she needs to be a 7. I'm actually a fairly good looking guy myself and pull 7/10s from bars/clubs regularly, it's the "relationship" and "marriage arrangement" I can't find in women. I'm divorced and have had long-term relationships so I can navigate them and I'm not some crazy anti-social person that can't make relationships work. I work in sales and my job is essentially a Relationship Manager. I want 4 kids so I'd prefer a woman in her 20s or very early 30s at the latest.

I of course will be consulting with a lawyer to ensure I will owe the woman no money ever, even if kids are involved if they leave me. If that can't be accomplished in Canada then I'll be scrapping this idea.

Where should I find what I'm looking for? Is there a good paid service that isn't a scam or something? I really don't have too much time/patience for dating/courting/etc... If she's physically attractive and says she wants to be a housewife, that's good enough for me, assuming she's being honest. I like love/romance but if a woman genuinely wants this arrangement and is physically attractive then I already know I can fall in love with her.

I prefer white women so Eastern Europeans seem like what I'd probably be leaning toward. I am open to any race except black girls, or darker skinned girls (Asian/Middle-East/South American), the lighter skinned girls of other races are generally fine. I don't find Filipinos attractive unless they're a bombshell so it's better I don't focus my attention there.

How should I go about this? Some people say you should take years to build up a relationship and trust before bringing a foreigner over but again, I don't think I have the patience for that.

This is probably my last ditch effort for a family I think...

Any advice?

Ohhhh and one thing that's probably a big deal which will make this quite a challenge. I am not vaccinated against covid-19 and cannot travel outside of my country. I can fly potential girls to me though.
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
"I of course will be consulting with a lawyer to ensure I will owe the woman no money ever, even if kids are involved if they leave me. If that can't be accomplished in Canada then I'll be scrapping this idea."

Regarding the prenup (marriage contract), it's more likely that the courts will uphold it if both parties have had independent legal advice (i.e. each party has his/her own lawyer) and have made full financial disclosure via sworn financial statements. I've had some experience with Canadian marriage contracts, so I'll do my best to answer any questions that you may have regarding this. You could always send me a private message if you like.

Focus on retaining family lawyers who practice collaborative family law, these ones are more likely to work with the parties and help them arrive at a marriage contract acceptable to both parties.
 
Last edited:

Zeknichov

 
Banned
"I of course will be consulting with a lawyer to ensure I will owe the woman no money ever, even if kids are involved if they leave me. If that can't be accomplished in Canada then I'll be scrapping this idea."

Regarding the prenup (marriage contract), it's more likely that the courts will uphold it if both parties have had independent legal advice (i.e. each party has his/her own lawyer) and have made full financial disclosure via sworn financial statements. I've had some experience with Canadian marriage contracts, so I'll do my best to answer any questions that you may have regarding this. You could always send me a private message if you like.

Focus on retaining family lawyers who practice collaborative family law, these ones are more likely to work with the parties and help them arrive at a marriage contract acceptable to both parties.

Thanks. I'll probably focus on this part last. I doubt the contract I want is legal in Canada. I'd want sex essentially a duty and a violation of her duties means she gets nothing. I have a feeling that doesn't work for Canadian law. Besides that, this is how I'd like a contract. Essentially list out sets of duties for both parties. If I breach my duty to her then she can leave me and she gets something. If she breaches her duty to me then I can leave her without owing her anything. Absolutely nothing (no alimony, child support, half my pension, half the house, etc...). If I leave the relationship without a breach of duties being proven then she gets something. If she leaves without proving I breached anything then she gets nothing.
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
"I'd want sex essentially a duty and a violation of her duties means she gets nothing." Yeah.......that's never going to fly. Why not aim for mutual releases from spousal support and equalization payments in the event of divorce? Surely that would suffice? It's completely impossible for either party to opt out of child support under Canadian law. The reason is that neither the husband nor the wife can waive a child's right to receive support in the event of marriage breakdown.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
"I'd want sex essentially a duty and a violation of her duties means she gets nothing." Yeah.......that's never going to fly. Why not aim for mutual releases from spousal support and equalization payments in the event of divorce? Surely that would suffice? It's completely impossible for either party to opt out of child support under Canadian law. The reason is that neither the husband nor the wife can waive a child's right to receive support in the event of marriage breakdown.

I'm not entirely familiar with the terminology you're using. I mean, we could just go with a she gets absolutely nothing in a divorce agreement if that's possible. No alimony or assets of any except what she brought into the relationship. Since she won't be working, she won't have earned an income so she should come out of a divorce with absolutely nothing. $0 in the bank account. No half the house and not even the purses I bought her because that's all my money, not hers. I'd let her keep her personal belongings and gifts but legally she should be entitled to 0. That possible?

As for child support, then can she sign in the event of a divorce the children stay with me guaranteed and she can have visitation rights but in no circumstances will the children live with her such that I ever owe her child support?
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
"I mean, we could just go with a she gets absolutely nothing in a divorce agreement if that's possible. " Yes, you absolutely can do this provided that you don't muddy the waters by introducing other conditions into the mix. Just keep it simple, neither party gets money from the other in the event of a divorce. Period. No further conditions required. As for personal chattels, just have it written that these are divided according to personal ownership. Please consider that chattels you bought her as gifts are still technically hers (since they were gifts).

No, you cannot deal with custody of the children by way of a marriage contract. That could only happen by way of a Separation Agreement, which would have to be drafted during the separation/divorce of the parties.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
"I mean, we could just go with a she gets absolutely nothing in a divorce agreement if that's possible. " Yes, you absolutely can do this provided that you don't muddy the waters by introducing other conditions into the mix. Just keep it simple, neither party gets money from the other in the event of a divorce. Period. No further conditions required. As for personal chattels, just have it written that these are divided according to personal ownership. Please consider that chattels you bought her as gifts are still technically hers (since they were gifts).

No, you cannot deal with custody of the children by way of a marriage contract. That could only happen by way of a Separation Agreement, which would have to be drafted during the separation/divorce of the parties.

Okay, I'd just structure the asset separation like this. Short and simple. Stupid simple. No exceptions.

The child aspect is worrisome so far. Can you draft a separation agreement and sign it at the same time as the marriage contract. In event of kids, kids stay with me in the separation agreement?
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
"Can you draft a separation agreement and sign it at the same time as the marriage contract. In event of kids, kids stay with me in the separation agreement?" No, because you aren't separating from each other when you are completing the marriage contract. The courts care about the "best interests of the child" during the time of separation. It's a consideration that can only be examined when the parents are separating/divorcing. I don't blame you for being concerned about the wellbeing and living arrangements of the children, but I have to be honest with you and I cannot give you false hope.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
"Can you draft a separation agreement and sign it at the same time as the marriage contract. In event of kids, kids stay with me in the separation agreement?" No, because you aren't separating from each other when you are completing the marriage contract. The courts care about the "best interests of the child" during the time of separation. It's a consideration that can only be examined when the parents are separating/divorcing. I don't blame you for being concerned about the wellbeing and living arrangements of the children, but I have to be honest with you and I cannot give you false hope.

Hmm, yeah if this is the case then I probably won't be able to pursue children in Canada. The legal agreements aren't suitable for me.

Next question then...

Can I get a surrogate mother to have children with and have full "ownership" of the children (surrogate also gets absolutely nothing) such that any foreigner would have 0 interest legally in the children because the children won't be hers?

Also, is there no way for a woman to give up any legal interest in her own kids prior to having the kids? This would be the only way I would have children with a woman for a marriage then. If she can't give up her rights to the children then perhaps the surrogate idea... is that possible? Would there be any issues legally with the fact she cared for the children even though they aren't hers... would she have a legal argument that they are "in effect" her kids then and she should be granted the same rights as the biological mother?
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
If you are living in Ontario, you should become familiar with the Family Law Act. Here is the section stating that a court can set aside any provision in a domestic contract dealing with custody/access of children if it is in the best interests of the child/children to do so. No contract dealing with child custody/access (visitation) is invincible under Ontario law. Surrogacy won't escape this fact.

Contracts subject to best interests of child​

56 (1) In the determination of a matter respecting the education, moral training or decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to a child, the court may disregard any provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the matter where, in the opinion of the court, to do so is in the best interests of the child.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
If you are living in Ontario, you should become familiar with the Family Law Act. Here is the section stating that a court can set aside any provision in a domestic contract dealing with custody/access of children if it is in the best interests of the child/children to do so. No contract dealing with child custody/access (visitation) is invincible under Ontario law. Surrogacy won't escape this fact.

Contracts subject to best interests of child​

56 (1) In the determination of a matter respecting the education, moral training or decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to a child, the court may disregard any provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the matter where, in the opinion of the court, to do so is in the best interests of the child.

lol, that's a joke. So your children belong to the government really. I guess that is ultimately what they've always wanted.

I'm in Saskatchewan not Ontario. Any better in SK? I have a feeling I'll have to skip children in Canada then but if I skip children it'll probably be difficult to find a stay-at-home housewife who doesn't want children and won't get bored all day enough to start cheating on me. Family idea really doesn't seem very feasible in this country.
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
I'm completely unfamiliar with SK family law, but I don't imagine that it would be any different. Please try not to get too discouraged. Even protecting yourself from spousal support and property division is a win. I know plenty of men who would have been grateful to have avoided spousal support/property equalization by means of a domestic contract.

Sure, you can't protect yourself 100% against child support or loss of custody but you can at least protect yourself in some ways.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
I'm completely unfamiliar with SK family law, but I don't imagine that it would be any different. Please try not to get too discouraged. Even protecting yourself from spousal support and property division is a win. I know plenty of men who would have been grateful to have avoided spousal support/property equalization by means of a domestic contract.

Sure, you can't protect yourself 100% against child support or loss of custody but you can at least protect yourself in some ways.

I'm just imagining the pain of my stay-at-home housewife getting a job, then leaving me, putting our children in an academic institution instead of home-schooling and me being unable to do anything about it because the government decides their public school system is in the better interest of the child rather than me hiring a tutor/babysitter for their education. Then my kids get groomed by a bunch of LGBTQ+ faggots while being emasculated and feminized by the matriarchal school system + mainstream media + Hollywood etc... that my ex-wife will then expose my kids to. Then, just to spite me she'll turn our kids trans in order to virtue signal and when I try to stop it, the courts will rule that I'm hurting the children and what I'm doing is not "in their best interest" so I'll lose custody even more so...

Yeah... I don't think kids are possible in Canada then. You're saying a surrogate can't even bypass this? What if the surrogate wasn't Canadian and I essentially imported in children from a different country? Could the foreign non-Canadian citizen woman have any potential influence on the children? If I brought in a foreign woman, used a foreign surrogate, DID NOT marry the foreign woman and put her in a separate house such that we wouldn't live together (try to circumvent the conjugal relationship aspect), could I bypass her ability to influence my children then? I imagine the courts would still see her overall relationship as such that she would get rights to my children?
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
As far as surrogacy is concerned, the less contact the surrogate had with the children = the less likely that the courts will be willing to award custody or visitation to that surrogate. In the case mentioned in the National Post, the male sperm donor (a homosexual man) failed to obtain visitation rights to his offspring. Why? Because he never had any significant role in the child's life (besides donating his sperm). A quote from the article: "“Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [Mr. deBlois’s] status as his parent might mean,” said the judge. “All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse effect to the child is too great to ignore.”

So the less involvement the surrogate had in the children's life, the less likely a court will be willing to disrupt the child's life by forcing the child to become acquainted with the surrogate. I would recommend that you research the case, it's been a while since I've read it in depth.
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
Please consider contacting Michelle Flowerday, a Toronto-based fertility and family-law lawyer. She has plenty of experience dealing with surrogacy. At the very least, she could probably direct you to a good SK surrogacy lawyer who could answer your questions on surrogacy. https://familysurrogacylawyer.com/about-us/

I'm sorry that I can't be of more help, but I haven't really dealt with surrogacy law.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
As far as surrogacy is concerned, the less contact the surrogate had with the children = the less likely that the courts will be willing to award custody or visitation to that surrogate. In the case mentioned in the National Post, the male sperm donor (a homosexual man) failed to obtain visitation rights to his offspring. Why? Because he never had any significant role in the child's life (besides donating his sperm). A quote from the article: "“Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [Mr. deBlois’s] status as his parent might mean,” said the judge. “All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse effect to the child is too great to ignore.”

So the less involvement the surrogate had in the children's life, the less likely a court will be willing to disrupt the child's life by forcing the child to become acquainted with the surrogate. I would recommend that you research the case, it's been a while since I've read it in depth.
Thanks, I think the surrogate mother issue can be overcome, it's the "wife" issue that cannot it seems like.

Is there any way to get a woman to act like a wife without her getting any say in the kids. I don't want her to disagree with me then have the courts rule "what is in the kids interests". I do not trust my government to rule what is in the best interest of my children. That is for me to decide and me alone. Now this legal aspect only matters if there's a woman involved who has a disagreement with me and brings in the government to rule on the disagreement.

Is there any way to get a woman who acts like a mother for my children without her ever being able to bring the government in to rule on my kids? Think crafty ideas like my suggestion of housing the woman in a separate house. It would be like a nanny that you're fucking... Well just because you're fucking your children's nanny doesn't mean she gets any say in the children, right?
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
"Think crafty ideas like my suggestion of housing the woman in a separate house. It would be like a nanny that you're [redacted]... Well just because you're [redacted] your children's nanny doesn't mean she gets any say in the children, right?"

That would be really tough......the courts will consider whether or not the woman in question acted as a parent to the children and who was the better parent to the children. Honestly, short of an anonymous egg-donor who never had any contact with the children after birthing them, it's not possible to give yourself 100% protection from custody/access disputes. Maybe you could get a surrogate mother, raise the children by yourself as a single dad for a few years, then get a mail order bride (different person from the surrogate) to live with you after the children have bonded with you. That's probably the best option.
 

Zeknichov

 
Banned
"Think crafty ideas like my suggestion of housing the woman in a separate house. It would be like a nanny that you're [redacted]... Well just because you're [redacted] your children's nanny doesn't mean she gets any say in the children, right?"

That would be really tough......the courts will consider whether or not the woman in question acted as a parent to the children and who was the better parent to the children. Honestly, short of an anonymous egg-donor who never had any contact with the children after birthing them, it's not possible to give yourself 100% protection from custody/access disputes. Maybe you could get a surrogate mother, raise the children by yourself as a single dad for a few years, then get a mail order bride (different person from the surrogate) to live with you after the children have bonded with you. That's probably the best option.
This idea might work... How old do you think they'd need to be for any mail-order woman to not get anything in a custody dispute? If they were say 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old then I brought in the mail-order, would that work? I feel like after say like 3-5 years of the woman living with me such that the kids were say 7, 8, 9 and 10, she would still be in a great position to say she's their parent and they bonded with her etc...

You'd almost have to wait until the kids were more like 7, 8, 9 and 10 or maybe even older which then defeats the entire purpose of having a wife + kids... I might as well just raise the kids myself and hire escorts. Not that I want this option because I agree all with Roosh's morals and everything but it just doesn't seem like Canadian law allows for children to be worthwhile. Basically, I can have a wife or I can have children but I can't have both.
 

JoeChill

Robin
Protestant
Gold Member
I understand your concerns and apprehension, but it's really not possible to avoid all of the potential pitfalls of the modern world. You can mitigate your losses (ex. getting a contract to save yourself the large expenses of spousal support and property division) but you cannot guarantee an optimal outcome.

Heck, even if you and your wife were happily married forever/never divorced/did everything for your child(ren)/homeschooled, there's no guarantee of a good outcome (kids could still become gay or suicidal). There's only so much that is humanely possible and no one can live a life free from risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top