what is promiscuous

The high price of clandestine love

When does a mistress become a common-law spouse, and when does
a secret lover qualify for monthly support? ERIN ANDERSSEN reports

By ERIN ANDERSSEN

Saturday, November 2, 2002 - Page F2

Margo Sturgess gave her heart to William James Shaw, though he was not, in the truest sense, hers to have. They travelled together to Lake Placid and England. They made love at her home and in hotels and at his cottage. In her version of their secret affair, they cozied up in bed over the newspaper, and went for long drives in the country, and, in the peak of their two-decade romance, talked regularly by phone.

She is the mother of his child, a daughter, now 20 years old, born while he was on away on business. He paid child support -- up to $1,000 a month. Then things fell apart and so began the bickering over the boundaries, and price, of clandestine love.

She says this was a marriage, and wants financial support. "I chose to be a mother to my daughter and a partner to him."

Already married to Mrs. Shaw, Mr. Shaw says this was an on-and-off-again sexual relationship where nothing was promised. "I haven't done anything incorrectly. I came forward and paid my dues."

Now, they're headed to court, for a legal definition of the tryst, in a case that will pose the kind of question to set philandering souls quaking: When does a mistress become a common-law spouse, and when does a secret lover qualify for monthly support payments?

Old lovers are in a public pique these days, launching lawsuits when the romance sours -- as with the mistress of the prominent Texas oilman now suing for defamation -- or spilling secrets on paper -- as in the snippy Dr. John letters in Hell Hath No Fury,released this month.

But should she win her request for $5,000 in monthly spousal support payments -- last month a Ontario Superior Court judge gave her permission to appeal an earlier dismissal of her suit -- the case of Margo Sturgess could lay a powerful precedent in the hands of long-suffering mistresses everywhere.

This would mean, said Mr. Shaw's lawyer, Michael Miller, that cheating adults who produce a child from an affair could also acquire a second spouse. "How do you protect yourself? Do you say, 'I won't have an affair unless you sign this contract?' This is a relationship, with mutual benefits, not a paid-for service."

On the anxious-adulterer front, Ms. Sturgess's lawyer, Elliot Birnoim, is unsympathetic: "I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing, that they should get a little worried."

Mr. Shaw, a jeweller in Orillia, Ont., and Ms. Sturgess, a nurse in nearby Barrie, first met as teenagers at a house party and then rekindled their romance after sharing a coffee as adults. They called it quits in 2000 after two decades.

But Ms. Sturgess, who says she sacrificed jobs to raise their daughter and now has health problems herself, wants Mr. Shaw to help her out financially. He still lives with his wife of 29 years; they have two adult children.

The appeal will hinge on the definition of "cohabit." The lower court judge, who tossed out Ms. Sturgess's claim earlier, found she did not qualify as a "spouse." Provincial legislation says a couple who aren't married can be considered spouses if they have a child together and "cohabited in a relationship of some permanence."

But Mr. Justice Peter Howden decided the courts needed more guidance, especially in cases where a child is involved. Because of his ruling, Ms. Sturgess is expected to be heard at Ontario's Divisional Court next March.

The former lovers disagree in their affidavits about the nature of their affair, from how often they got together to how they shared the trappings of coupledom -- errands and housework and gift-giving. They don't see eye-to-eye on their commitment to the relationship, and who promised what.

The motions judge who first dismissed Ms. Sturgess's claim found that they cooked and spent some nights together, but did not present themselves in public as a couple or ever share a residence. These are the kinds of details the three-judge panel will have to assess in March, to determine when a lover, even the illicit kind, can hold you liable.