#TỪ_VỰNG_IELTS_CHỦ_ĐỀ_FAMILY
➡️ Sách Từ vựng & Ý tuởng cho IELTS Writing: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-luyen-ielts-vocabulary
➡️ Sách Từ vựng & Ý tưởng cho IELTS Speaking: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-ielts-vocabulary-speaking
------------------------------
MỘT SỐ IDIOMS HAY:
- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree: a child usually has similar qualities to their parents.
Eg: “It’s not unusual that you have the same interests as your mother. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
- to follow in someone’s footsteps: to try to achieve the same things that someone else (usually a family member) has already done.
Eg: I decided to go into law instead of medicine. I thought about following in my father’s footsteps and becoming a surgeon, but I don’t think I’d make a great doctor.
- like father, like son: sons tend to be similar to their fathers. We normally use this idiom to talk about personality, interests, and character
Eg: Jimmy is tall just like his father, and they have the same smile. Like father, like son.
- to run in the family: many members of the family have that quality, skill, interest, problem, disease, etc.
Eg: Heart disease runs in my family. I try to have a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise.
- the apple of one’s eye: Someone’s favorite or most cherished person is the apple of their eye. We often use this idiom to talk about a parent and their child.
Eg: Our grandson is the apple of our eye. We absolutely adore him.
- get along with (or get on with): If two people get along with (or get on with) each other, it means that they like each other and have a friendly relationship. (Get along with is American English, and get on with is British English.)
Eg: If you have a large family, there will likely be some people who don’t get along with each other.
- (just) one big happy family: If a group of people is (just) one big happy family, it means that a group of people (often a family) get along and work well together. We sometimes use this idiom sarcastically.
Eg: Our firm has been successful because of our close-knit relationship. We’re one big happy family.
- bad blood: there is anger or hate between people people due to something that happened in the past.
Eg: Are you sure you want to invite all of your cousins to your party? Isn’t there bad blood between two of them?
- Bring home the bacon: kiếm tiền nuôi gia đình
Eg: My mom – as a housewife, she does all the household chores, while my dad – as an officer, works outside and brings home the bacon.
- Black sheep of the family: khác biệt
Being the black sheep of the family, I’m the only one who works as artist, while my parents are both teachers.
- Men make houses, women make homes: đàn ông xây nhà, đàn bà xây tổ ấm
Folks rumoured that men make houses, women make homes. So, in Viet Nam, men often work outside to earn money, while women takes care for home.
CÁC LOẠI GIA ĐÌNH & THÀNH VIÊN TRONG GIA ĐÌNH
- Extended family (noun phrase): gia đình trực hệ
ENG: people who are very closely related to you, such as your parents, children, brothers, and sisters
- nuclear family (noun phrase): gia đình hạt nhân
ENG: a family group consisting of two parents and their children (one or more)
- only child (noun phrase): con một
ENG: a child who has no sisters or brothers
- extended family (noun phrase): đại gia đình, họ
ENG: a family that extends beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, who all live nearby or in one household.
- offspring – a person's child or children: con cái
Eg: My two sisters are coming over later with their offspring so the house is going to be very noisy.
- family man – a man who enjoys being at home with his wife and children: người đàn ông của gia đình
Eg: Deepak used to love partying but now that he has kids he’s become a real family man.
- single parent – a person bringing up a child or children without a partner: cha/mẹ đơn thân
Eg: My sister is a single parent now that her husband has left her.
- stay at home parent / stay at home father/mother – a parent who stays at home to take care of their children rather than going out to work: cha/mẹ không đi làm mà ở nhà chăm con
Eg: These days, it’s far more usual for men to be a stay-at-home parent than when I was young when it was always the mother who looked after the kids.
Download PDF tại đây: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uc9mqGmbJIDV-prrFXp27I5WQQWuUfAn/view?usp=sharing
同時也有7部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過1,270的網紅Freeyon Chung 鍾君揚,也在其Youtube影片中提到,I can’t hide my love for Disney and my desire to sing Disney covers lol This time, Jessica and I decided to step up our game and record this video at ...
「i 'd rather be with you」的推薦目錄:
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 IELTS Thanh Loan Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 DJ荳子 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 Freeyon Chung 鍾君揚 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 Pen My Blog Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於i 'd rather be with you 在 渡辺レベッカ ☆ Rebecca Butler Watanabe Youtube 的最佳貼文
i 'd rather be with you 在 DJ荳子 Facebook 的最讚貼文
/ 掃不完的QR code //
9月歌單【好事自在Latte】
09/30星期四
14:04:29心情超讚/嵐
14:08:2399次我愛他/元若藍
14:12:02人類廢品/馬仕釗
14:17:42沒有找到你/劉思涵
14:22:29Melody/陶吉吉
14:26:52Patience/Take That
14:34:24EY/蔣卓嘉/魏如萱
14:39:06情人知已/梁文音
14:43:26我腦海裡的照片/金宇彬
14:49:24I Will Love Again/Lara Fabian
14:54:03嗜愛動物/麋先生Mixer
15:04:18雙雙對對/許富凱/游美齡
15:08:28空位/張信哲
15:13:19Hug/臉紅的思春期
15:19:17伯父/瘦子E.SO
15:22:18letting you in/Haley
15:32:03Juice/Ayumu Imazu
15:36:59手心的太陽/張韶涵
15:41:29永遠不再/動力火車
15:49:20夏夜晚風/伍佰
15:53:10I'll Never Love Again/Lady Gaga
16:03:57鐵窗/許美靜
16:08:34成為你的歌/SHINee
16:12:43無畏/古巨基
16:18:43 Air Balloon/Lily Allen
16:22:26你是不是誤會什麼/呂薔/YELLOW黃宣
16:29:58我好想他/容祖兒
16:33:53Thinking Out Loud/Ed Sheeran
16:41:16燒/戴愛玲/熊仔
16:46:52Han Bok Ha Se Yeo 要幸福/夏宇童
16:50:26天空有太陽 你有我/KOKIA
16:54:37在一起嘛好不好/李榮浩
09/29星期三
14:04:23Sorry Sorry/SUPER JUNIOR
14:09:21愛無赦/蔡依林
14:13:08放大鏡/周予天
14:17:58葉子/阿桑
14:22:57城裡的月光/華研眾星
14:28:11Just A Fool/Christina Aguilera
14:36:31Keep On Walking/Passenger
14:41:36擋箭牌/郭修彧
14:50:28不哭/王心凌
14:55:51D.I.S.C.O./V6
15:04:19甘是錯愛/談詩玲
15:08:31KONOHOSHI 這顆星球/Orange Range
15:12:28愛情黑皮書/庾澄慶
15:18:57明明就/周杰倫
15:23:09門前雪/于文文
15:27:16I Need You/LeAnn Rimes
15:36:00That's what I want/Lil Nas X
15:39:28超人/五月天
15:43:50輸給時間/鄧福如
15:49:53這幾天/小宇-宋念宇
15:53:47I Swear/Sistar
16:04:03Lemon Tree/蘇慧倫
16:07:09The Animal Song/Savage Garden
16:11:34先說先贏/魚丁糸
16:16:42哪邊涼快哪邊待/Erika 劉艾立
16:20:25All We Know/The Chainsmoker
16:23:29慢飛/張震嶽/頑童MJ116
16:31:45雙棲動物/蔡健雅
16:35:51Beautiful/Crush
16:42:13天亮以後說分手/獅子LION
16:49:32打哈欠的貓/羊毛與千葉花
16:53:11你一直在玩/陳昇/陳綺貞
09/28星期二
14:04:54EY/蔣卓嘉/魏如萱
14:08:28I Feel It Coming/The Weeknd/Daft Punk
14:12:28一起去跑步/宇宙人
14:19:11約定/周蕙
14:23:20謝謝你的美好/嚴爵
14:26:2710 TIMES/B1A4
14:34:06Empire State Of Mind/Jay-Z/Alicia Keys
14:39:47把你還給你/方泂鑌
14:43:46別再為他流淚/梁靜茹
14:49:52那就別再做夢吧/廖文強
14:54:47直到永遠/宇多田 光
15:04:18姊妹仔/旺福
15:08:14情比姐妹深/錦繡二重唱
15:12:25Free Loop/Daniel Powter
15:17:57消化不良/leo王
15:21:36I love you no ha ha/Matzka
15:26:03Te Aviso Te Anuncio/Shakira
15:34:28Deja Vu/Ateez
15:38:49我很想愛他/林俊傑
15:43:01兩個女孩/莫文蔚
15:48:39今天星期幾/黃玠
15:55:03蘋果之歌/椎名林檎
16:03:57曲終人散/張宇
16:08:19Don't Blow Away/Bii畢書盡
16:12:24Big girls don't cry/Fergie
16:18:20Miss Trouble/蔡依林
16:21:30這波操作666/阿達/KEEN CHEN
16:24:13Wo Wa/安室奈美惠
16:32:05謝謝你的溫柔/S.H.E
16:36:32留戀/SUPER JUNIOR-D&E
16:42:54Don't You Worry 'bout A Things/Olivia Ong
16:49:44一兆個理由/陳瑾緗
16:53:37讀心術Mind Reading/痞克四
16:56:32Wild Wild West/The Escape Club
09/27星期一
14:04:37Happy/Pharrell William
14:08:26寶貝好壞/馬念先
14:11:32Hello/黃小琥
14:16:24愛情證書/孫燕姿
14:20:32Lean On You/鄭燁
14:24:09溫蒂公主的侍衛/告五人
14:32:30 Sing It Out Loud/OMI
14:37:11別哭小女孩/張震嶽
14:40:23昨天的自己/朱俐靜
14:46:14跪了/鼓鼓 呂思緯/吳卓源
14:51:03Hands/M-Flo
14:56:10甜蜜的家/阿爆&Brandy
15:04:10追追追/黃妃
15:08:48DNA/五月天
15:11:30Have A Nice Day/Bon Jovi
15:18:25我很好/劉若英
15:22:46城裡的月光/華研眾星
15:33:12Remember Tonight/弦子/李銖銜
15:36:31Complicated/Rihanna
15:41:51普通朋友/陶吉吉
15:48:02Forever Young/艾怡良
15:54:15Only You/Rain
16:04:03深秋的黎明/黎明
16:08:39微涼的記憶/周傳雄
16:13:20尋找差異/Kisum/任瑟雍
16:18:31樂來越愛你/郭蘅祈
16:21:54Another Day of Sun/La La Land
16:25:38太空瑪莉的偵探愛情電影/許哲珮
16:32:55凌晨三點鐘/張智成
16:37:41Everytime I Close My Eye/Babyface
16:43:40Fat Boy Gang/大淵
16:50:22陌生人/Soler
16:54:28You Belong With Me/Taylor Swift
09/24星期五
14:04:05我想你的快樂是因為我/洛客班
14:07:49好想吃拉麵/Orange Range
14:10:00會咬人的狗/Tizzy Bac
14:16:04無法入睡的夜/Crush/PUNCH
14:19:58你給我聽好/陳奕迅
14:24:31鱷魚/彭佳慧
14:32:53Kiss Me More/Doja Cat/SZA
14:37:28也可以/閻奕格
14:41:52不能說的秘密/周杰倫
14:49:30想你/范曉萱
14:53:37寶物/關8
15:04:12甜甜甜/傅薇
15:08:03親愛的/SUPER JUNIOR-厲旭
15:11:20媽滷個蛋/幽谷瓦歷思
15:16:46走路去紐約/陶晶瑩
15:21:01日環食/邱鋒澤
15:24:41A Sky Full Of Stars/Coldplay
15:33:42以後別做朋友/周興哲
15:40:05魚罐頭/自然捲
15:43:21too much food/Jason Mraz
15:49:18愛要安心呀/蕭閎仁/安心亞
15:54:08As Long As You Love Me/Backstreet Boys
16:04:03體會/陳慧琳
16:08:19I Love You/Just
16:12:14清醒裝睡中/曹格
16:16:54我就是個樸實無華的Bass手/魚丁糸
16:19:40Start Over/Imagine Dragons
16:22:41肯定就是你/許慧欣
16:31:29第三人稱/蔡依林
16:36:08脆弱一分鐘/林宥嘉
16:40:231+1+1=3/Prince 王子
16:49:53聰明不聰明/丁世光
16:53:26又愛又笑又開心又流淚/Dreams Come True
09/23星期四
14:04:05Funky Boy/Bii畢書盡
14:07:53Too Funky/George Michael
14:11:46親愛的別哭了/安婕希
14:17:27溫室花朵/陳綺貞
14:22:06你不真的想流浪/柯智棠
14:27:23哦 我的鬼神大人/3rd Coast
14:35:36On My Way/Alan Walker
14:39:56等一個晴天/蔡淳佳
14:44:15這樣好嗎/韋禮安
14:50:16是時候 啟程/范逸臣
14:54:52好多好多/大塚 愛
15:04:11蚵仔麵線/琳誼
15:07:32Best Part of Me/Ed Sheeran
15:11:26我的勇敢我的快樂/蘇慧倫
15:18:35關你屁事啊/彭佳慧/熊仔
15:22:05滑步向左/比莉
15:25:50 All For You/Janet Jackson
15:35:36溫柔的彗星/YOASOBI
15:40:15我瘋你/伍家輝
15:43:50不讀不回/吳汶芳
15:50:30WeWe/告五人
15:54:16I Drove All Night/Celine Dion
16:04:04聽海/張惠妹
16:09:00尋找/黃霆睿
16:12:10This Is The Last Time/Keane
16:17:37friDay 超展開/J.Sheon/魏如萱
16:21:18Last Dance/(G)I-DLE
16:24:22主動/溫嵐
16:32:16雪花/黃品源
16:36:44想起/江美琪
16:42:13將手伸進不安之中/槙原敬之
16:50:08White Flag/Dido
16:54:04任何形狀/DAPUN 大胖/陳思涵
9/22星期三
14:03:57時間快轉/戴佩妮
14:08:21愛的數學家/蔣卓嘉
14:10:35Summertime/The Click Five
14:14:40我們好好的/李榮浩
14:19:00還是要幸福/田馥甄
14:23:31GOOD DAY/IU
14:31:34This Kiss/Carly Rae Jepse
14:36:27捨得/鄭秀文
14:40:32Don't Cry/吳思賢
14:48:34單身≠失戀/孫盛希
14:53:50Sugar Lady/河村隆一
15:04:18情字這條路/賴銘偉
15:07:19Somewhere I Belong/Linkin Park
15:10:51Rise and Shine/小男孩樂團
15:16:16別再想見我/許光漢
15:20:35當冬夜漸暖/孫燕姿
15:25:10交往順利/B1A4
15:33:52Borrow Your Time/Fly By Midnight
15:38:22第一次/光良
15:42:35我們都傻/楊丞琳
15:49:55當你想著我/品冠/李心潔
15:54:02迷宮戀曲/嵐
16:03:56你是如此難以忘記/梁朝偉
16:08:20So much in love/All 4 one
16:12:21盲聽/于文文
16:18:06大頭仔/徐佳瑩
16:21:46Five/APINK
16:24:53愛情風向球/Energy
16:32:11誰知道/蔡旻佑
16:36:40何必記念/莊鵑瑛
16:42:08Midnight Sky/Miley Cyrus
16:48:11寂寞的咖啡因/柯震東
16:52:42青春的瞬間/椎名林檎
09/21星期二
14:04:04親愛的/潘瑋柏
14:08:08半糖主義/S.H.E
14:11:46Lemon/米津玄師
14:17:52該忘的日子/郭靜
14:21:58分享/伍思凱
14:26:37Wrapped Up/Olly Murs
14:33:53Call Me/徐懷鈺
14:38:13想見你想見你想見你/八三夭
14:42:18Flying Without Wings/Westlife
14:48:21A/GOT7
14:51:57我不是在悲傷的想念你/陳珊妮
14:55:01防空洞/蘇慧倫/張震嶽
15:04:11純情青春夢/許富凱
15:09:20Love Story/安室奈美惠
15:13:52怨偶/MC HotDog/艾怡良
15:19:28Lonely Together/Rita Ora
15:22:36沒什麼不能愛/曾沛慈
15:31:32Guard You/Young K
15:35:10有一種悲傷/A-Lin
15:38:49Make You Feel My Love/Adele
15:44:36Lose Yourself to Dance/Daft Punk
15:50:23舞女/岑寧兒
15:54:22心動/庾澄慶
16:04:04每一次喊你/無印良品
16:07:55過去、現在和未來/CNBLUE
16:11:50緩慢/林曉培
16:19:13不愛自己的人/蔡佩軒
16:23:04日日夜夜/張棟樑
16:27:48只想說,謝謝妳/MONKEY MAJIK
16:36:16How You Like That/BLACKPINK
16:39:53非你莫屬/TANK
16:44:26如何忘記你/張若凡
16:51:48囉哩叭唆/Ella 陳嘉樺
16:55:16嗨嗨人生/MC HotDog
09/20星期一
14:03:57Get The Party Started/P!nk
14:07:38你不懂我/葛仲珊
14:13:04聽見下雨的聲音/魏如昀
14:17:32小時候的我們/周興哲
14:20:53Silhouette/Tom Odell
14:30:19Turn Up The Radio/Madonna
14:34:41愛,很簡單/陶吉吉
14:38:58想見你/德永英明
14:46:25我只想在乎我在乎的/白安
14:51:21Sexy Sexy Lover/Modern Talking
14:54:23愈慢愈美麗/蔡依林
15:04:18啞巴情歌/黃乙玲
15:08:24獨處的時候/蘇打綠
15:12:45告別飛行/陶吉吉
15:18:57Swing/U-KNOW允浩/BoA
15:22:18薇多莉亞的秘密/張惠妹
15:30:44再也沒有你/梁心頤
15:35:56 Yes I do/Supper Moment
15:40:36我是如此愛你/林慧萍
15:47:47Who Says/Selena Gome
15:51:36我敢在你懷裡孤獨/劉若英
15:55:51不著地/王力宏
16:03:56忘了時間的鐘/古巨基
16:07:11Lucky/Jason Mraz
16:10:15我的左耳/舒米恩
16:15:20That's What I Like/Bruno Mars
16:18:43沒辦法/黃立成/Machi
16:26:35我愛的人不愛我/張智成
16:30:47應該/楊乃文
16:36:47Here I Am/地球樂團
16:47:09BAD LADY/楊丞琳/RAZOR
16:50:20Gangnam Style/Psy
16:53:54雙人枕頭/花兒樂隊
09/17星期五
14:04:08別急著說妳愛我到天長地久/糯米糰
14:08:08Broken Your Heart/Take That
14:11:46狂奔/藍心湄
14:18:45Bedtime Story/劉明湘
14:22:24超人不會飛/周杰倫
14:27:18Only U/Junggigo
14:33:50You'll Never Know/J.Sheon
14:38:25白天不懂夜的黑/那英
14:42:22Homesick/Dua Lipa/Chris Martin
14:49:167 years/Lukas Graham
14:53:06Beautiful Woman/安溥
15:04:04良心/亂彈
15:08:48Viva La Gloria?/Green Day
15:12:30外婆的泡泡糖/原子邦妮
15:19:17自戀的自虐/泯柯薰
15:24:20我們都寂寞/陳奕迅
15:29:02Life Is Good/EPIK HIGH/Jay
15:37:09小情歌/蘇打綠
15:42:44King/Years & Years
15:49:10你是答案/王笠人
15:53:50I should be so lucky/mihimaru GT大和美姬丸
16:04:06青梅竹馬/周治平
16:09:10再見/林凡
16:12:57Through The Dark/One Direction
16:19:28約嗎/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
16:22:32Honey/Mariah Carey
16:27:22你我可以/熊仔
16:35:58流浪地圖/蕭賀碩
16:41:20地獄有啥不好/星野源
16:48:59出嫁/李宓/風田
16:52:57Midnight Sun/F.CUZ
09/16星期四
14:04:04Everybody's Changing/Keane
14:07:32繼續轉動/動力火車
14:11:06等你回來/魏妙如
14:16:39想和你一起/李友廷/洪安妮
14:20:17沒關係 是愛情啊/DAVICHI
14:24:13錯覺/蘇慧倫
14:33:02Fun/Pitbull/Chris Brown
14:37:29我不是你該愛的那個人/曾沛慈
14:42:02星空/五月天
14:49:54心動了/Dreams Come True
14:54:32魔法BOY/春艷/持修
15:04:07共你惜惜/浩子
15:07:54談戀愛/脫拉庫
15:11:23Te Aviso Te Anuncio/Shakira
15:18:38那個男人/玄彬
15:23:03同行/文慧如
15:26:21壞掉的戀曲/魏如萱
15:35:47DROP/美波
15:41:52一起吃苦的幸福/周華健
15:49:07That's Why/MLTR
15:54:22美麗的 我不碰就是了/關詩敏
16:04:03燃燒一瞬間/張清芳
16:08:29With You/LYn
16:12:38Before We Die/noovy
16:17:49I'm A Mess/Bebe Rexha
16:20:51你是我的菜/周湯豪
16:29:22沒有找到你/劉思涵
16:34:09我給的愛/鍾鎮濤
16:39:44Hollywood/Madonna
16:47:39新娘紗/李宓
16:52:33藍天/黃義達
09/15星期三
14:04:49草莓麵包/戴佩妮
14:07:45ummer Lovely Days/大塚 愛
14:11:48我回來了/蔡旻佑
14:17:15雛形/徐佳瑩
14:21:06Much Too Soon/Michael Jackson
14:23:45獨一無二的女孩/謝沛恩
14:31:56On My Mind/Ellie Goulding
14:36:30今夜只為你歌唱/許茹芸
14:41:34還是愛著你/韋禮安
14:47:541.2.3.4/LEE HI
14:52:33背叛/曹格
15:04:10珍珠芋圓/旺福
15:07:54愛我久久/阿牛
15:11:16It's Our Time/moumoon 沐月
15:18:04Do Do Do/Karencici
15:20:51Not Myself Tonight/Christina Aguilera
15:29:26Don't Shut Me Down/ABBA
15:34:23我們都傻/楊丞琳
15:39:47我拿什麼愛妳/齊秦
15:46:55What Can I Do/南拳媽媽
15:50:18NAKKA/AKMU 樂童音樂家
15:54:54愛上一個女孩/許書豪
16:03:59你是我的幸福嗎/伊能靜
16:07:56愚公移山/麋先生Mixer
16:11:31Give Me A Reason/The Corrs
16:17:20In The End /Linkin Park
16:20:38戰/吳霏
16:26:18親密愛人/王若琳
16:30:45第三人稱/hush!
16:36:15Young Forever/CNBLUE
16:43:37原來在身邊/李宓
16:47:51Long Vacation/Cagnet
16:52:04有一道彩虹/大合唱
09/14星期二
14:04:04飢/羅時豐
14:08:08美味的秘密/桑田佳祐
14:13:16不愛了/李玖哲
14:18:02Lost in your eyes/Debbie Gibson
14:21:39不能重生的冒險/美秀集團
14:29:49低電量/呂士軒
14:34:25It's Gonna Be Alright/順子
14:39:05Know Who You Are/Pharrell William
14:45:25轉身以後/小男孩樂團
14:50:19All With You/少女時代-太妍
14:54:08一千年以後/林俊傑
15:04:07紅線/江蕙
15:09:12海邊的曼徹斯特/郭蘅祈
15:13:42Tell Them Who You Are/Daniel Powter
15:19:50Don't Shut Me Down/ABBA
15:23:40獨舞/徐懷鈺
15:30:34Me without you/Xydo/玟星
15:35:07放心不下/黃小琥
15:39:27漸好/光良
15:45:50Love Song/Luna Sea
15:53:51美麗舊世界/李芷婷
16:04:03吻別/張學友
16:08:50舊情歌/蔡健雅
16:12:28Everything At Once/Lenka
16:17:02COLORFUL/婁峻碩
16:20:36結果咧/大嘴巴
16:24:54Breathe/Jax Jones/Ina
16:32:25傻孩子/閻韋伶
16:36:09不將就/李榮浩
16:42:17約定/EXO
16:49:51出嫁/李宓/風田
16:53:48新世界/棉花糖
09/13星期一
14:04:36MOON NIGHT/I Don't Like Monday
14:07:37寂寞之上/宇宙人
14:11:49誰撿到我的夢/林依晨
14:17:28愛要有你才完美/那英
14:22:12在哪裡都很好/蔡健雅/王源
14:25:59I Still../Backstreet Boys
14:32:25Good Foot/Justin Timberla
14:37:07手語/周杰倫
14:41:48這也是沒有辦法的事/陳珊妮
14:48:34小王子/SUPER JUNIOR-厲旭
14:53:43神奇/孫燕姿
15:04:22蚵仔麵線/琳誼
15:07:44我的失敗與偉大/劉若英
15:11:13Shoes/王大文
15:18:17Angel Baby/Troye Sivan
15:21:50沒有人抽煙/林憶蓮
15:30:57我本想大聲斥責但她真的好香/Zing
15:35:21我是一隻小小鳥/丁噹
15:40:05聽說你找到了快樂 /林育群
15:46:459 Million/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
15:51:39即使離別 /平井堅
16:03:59囚鳥/彭羚
16:08:37Blue Sky/Standing Egg
16:12:31教海鷗飛行的貓/王心凌
16:18:28蘋果人民共和國/馬念先
16:22:22Lightning/The Wanted
16:30:05雙手的溫柔/江美琪
16:34:13親愛的/徐若瑄
16:40:18Woman/Maroon 5
16:48:52新娘紗/李宓
16:53:47著迷氣泡飲料/洸美-hiromi-
09/10星期五
14:04:04變心記/蔡旻佑
14:07:42神隊友/慢慢說樂團
14:11:12Pussy Cat/Lou Bega
14:16:33鋼琴鍵/戴佩妮
14:20:27天天夜夜/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
14:25:11Too Much/Carly Rae Jepsen
14:31:53That's What I Like/Bruno Mars
14:36:00自己照顧自己/萬芳
14:39:39再遇見你/何維健
14:46:18No Good For You/Meghan Trainor
14:50:21獨上C樓/YELLOW黃宣/范曉萱
14:54:1Pop Star/平井堅
15:04:07Beautiful的你莫走/七月半
15:08:28咖啡戀曲/旺福
15:12:29泳池畔的美人魚/V6
15:19:03In Your Time/李秀賢
15:23:27獨家記憶/陳小春
15:28:26positions/Ariana Grande
15:33:47初戀粉色系/南拳媽媽
15:38:11私奔到月球/五月天/陳綺貞
15:41:56Gorgeous/Taylor Swift
15:47:39我已成為我想要的我/林逸欣
15:51:31Bed Of Roses/Bon Jovi
16:04:03大雨/金智娟
16:09:06倖存者/林俊傑
16:13:41Snake/R. Kelly
16:21:03我不是你的快樂/蔡佩軒
16:25:01別說/李玖哲
16:28:15Love is all around/URBAN ZAKAPA
16:35:13管他啦/Matzka
16:39:45葉子/阿桑
16:44:24幸福到想哭/周華健
16:51:27小女孩/張芸京
16:55:40Spider Man/Michael Buble
09/09星期四
14:04:07用心盡在其中/吳汶芳
14:07:15太煩惱/楊丞琳
14:10:46Picture Of You/Boyzone
14:16:30無人知曉/田馥甄
14:21:07ALWAYS/Wanna One
14:25:20愛要坦蕩蕩/蕭蕭
14:32:04Take My Breath/The Weeknd
14:36:45眼淚的名字/謝安琪
14:40:46相信愛/周興哲
14:47:42奇異博士/吳克群
14:52:41Dearest/濱崎步
15:04:04酒命怪貓/曹雅雯/草屯囝仔
15:07:24magenta rain/M-Flo
15:12:58呼吸/J.Sheon
15:19:50欲言又止/閻奕格
15:23:36心無畏怯/徐仁國
15:27:08多情會有問題/張清芳
15:35:10Summertime/FIVE NEW OLD
15:39:40離開我/陶晶瑩
15:49:05分手夜/謊言留聲機/徐佳瑩
15:54:48They/Jem
16:04:06缺口/齊秦
16:09:25Hello/Adele
16:14:09機會與命運/hush!
16:20:38今天,半永久/梁靜茹
16:24:43 Wake Up In The Sky/Bruno Mars
16:31:01翅膀/林依晨
16:35:15最近的永遠/光良
16:40:29煙花/CNBLUE-鄭容和
16:47:35青椒肉絲/福原希己江
16:50:4香吉士之歌/四枝筆樂團
16:54:21也許像星星/929
09/08星期三
14:03:54Cake By The Ocean/DNCE
14:07:28再快樂一點/張韶涵
14:13:42每天每天/RK金承熙
14:18:19愛的代價/梁詠琪
14:22:27一加一大於二/關韶文/焦凡凡
14:28:33Gust Of Wind/Pharrell William
14:34:19黃色月亮/蘇慧倫
14:38:28日不落/潘裕文
14:46:11這樣好嗎/韋禮安
14:49:50如同悲傷被下載了兩次/陳珊妮/林宥嘉
14:53:5624-25/iri
15:04:14莎喲娜拉/旺福
15:08:03怎麼辦/S.H.E
15:11:24故事/柚子
15:18:30咖啡在等一個人/周慧敏
15:23:20妳的每個瞬間/成始璟
15:27:13追/孫燕姿
15:34:10I am not a woman, I_m a/Halsey
15:40:54珍珠奶茶/品冠
15:46:17I'll Never Love Again/Lady Gaga
15:52:45最重要的小事/五月天
16:03:56這樣愛你對不對/李宗盛
16:08:46被擋住的路/臉紅的思春期
16:12:59要怎麼告訴你我多喜歡/魏嘉瑩/理想混蛋雞丁
16:18:29Spirit In The Sky/Gareth Gates
16:21:53起床歌/曹格
16:28:45為你的寂寞唱歌/家家
16:33:42Tonight I'm here/張立昂
16:39:31Pieces/w-inds
16:49:19Ride Wit Me/Nelly
16:54:02想像愛/蔡詩芸
09/07星期二
14:04:38好想回到幼稚園/胖虎樂團
14:07:59STRAY HEART/Green Day
14:11:40環遊世界/旺福
14:16:26完美孤獨/莫文蔚
14:21:12北斗七星/ROY KIM
14:24:52奇異博士/吳克群
14:31:21Like I Would/ZAYN
14:35:39指望/郁可唯
14:39:29妳不必愛我/方炯鑌
14:46:53To Be Loved/潘瑋柏
14:50:20出嫁/李宓/風田
14:54:17KISS/柴崎幸
15:04:04愛的太超過/李千那/李英宏
15:07:48Moves/Olly Murs
15:10:30狂想.曲/蕭亞軒
15:16:26與海無關/告五人
15:20:20沙灘/蔡健雅
15:24:53那我算什麼/B1A4
15:32:10SPICY/CL
15:36:28他還認不認得我/丁噹
15:40:35我還相信我/黃偉晉
15:48:17Looking For An Angel/Kylie Minogue
15:53:13我比誰都清楚/陳曉東
16:04:06我無所謂/張惠妹
16:08:53Who You Love/John Mayer
16:13:00果不其然/吳柏蒼
16:18:55BLUE SKY/婁峻碩
16:22:15Starry Night/BoA
16:25:43仰望天空/溫嵐
16:32:14下雨天來不及開口的初戀/陳零九
16:37:20捨不得你/鄭秀文
16:43:24世界的盡頭/椎名林檎
16:49:33還是要相信愛情啊混蛋們/魏如萱
16:53:18She's Waiting/Eric Clapton
09/06星期一
14:03:57香水百合/張韶涵
14:06:48Everybody Wants Ya/S Club 7
14:09:53確可CHECK/林采欣
14:14:37學會/王菀之
14:18:41雨中的讚美詩/光良
14:22:33是花兒/Alex艾力克斯
14:28:51少了你的生活/熊仔
14:32:48倒著走/白安
14:37:22Still The Same/Rod Stewart
14:44:50沒有了/曾沛慈
14:49:55剪刀石頭布/影子計劃
14:53:51Lovin' it/安室奈美惠
15:04:14心愛的再會啦/伍佰& China Blue
15:09:14We Got It Going On/Bon Jovi
15:13:23晚點開竅/文慧如
15:21:16寂寞無謂/解偉苓
15:25:06海嘯/庾澄慶
15:29:42I love you more than any/TWICE
15:36:11精神分裂/吳卓源
15:38:44I Wanna Love You/AKon/Snoop dogg
15:43:49假裝/蔡依林
15:51:04鋼鐵愛情故事/ 蔡明仁
15:55:34少年/柚子
16:03:56悶/王菲
16:07:52Therefore I Am /Billie Eilish
16:10:40摩登原始人/炎亞綸
16:16:24泡沫/鄧紫棋
16:20:32痞子的情書/信
16:25:04最佳的幸運/EXO-CHEN
16:31:27Love/Little Mix
16:36:10走鋼索的人/李泉
16:40:50愛我就給我/李英宏
16:49:55帶著音樂去旅行/二珂
16:53:37La·La·La Love Song/久保田利伸
09/03星期五
14:04:43Make You Feel/王詩安
14:09:06Only Wanna Dance With You/Ke$ha
14:14:26不需要知道/韋禮安
14:18:52愛我 /張智成
14:23:40小星星/AKMU 樂童音樂家
14:31:33Rumors/Lizzo/Cardi B
14:35:16深邃與甜蜜/張清芳
14:40:02走散/曹楊
14:46:41雨點落在我頭上/羊毛與千葉花
14:50:10Scream/安溥
14:53:19But She Likes/許書豪
15:04:43愛情甜甜/孫淑媚
15:08:33Green Light/少女時代
15:11:19萬人迷/艾成
15:17:39愛我請保持沉默/馬念先
15:21:59最幸福的事/梁文音
15:26:25Nina/Ed Sheeran
15:32:51薔薇/蕭亞軒
15:38:07盲點/郭修彧
15:43:19Summer Of Love/Shawn Mendes
15:48:18我們的情人節/田亞霍
15:52:53Family Song/星野 源
16:04:03因為寂寞/李宗盛
16:07:20漫漫天光/莊鵑瑛
16:12:24Doesn't Matter/Daniel Powter
16:17:16天菜/J.Sheon
16:20:28I'll Show You/Justin Bieber
16:23:42Who Are You/BoA
16:31:29愛我吧/方大同
16:36:03讓心跳停了/藍又時
16:42:11跨越距離/矢井田瞳
16:48:35完美落地/亂彈阿翔
16:53:11Utopia/Alanis Morisset
09/02星期四
14:04:04鏡子/leo王
14:07:46Send Your Love/Sting
14:12:15Animals/SUPER JUNIOR
14:17:36你的名字/陳零九
14:22:26我為什麼那麼愛你/張惠妹
14:27:15Dream On/Roxette
14:32:34Butter/BTS 防彈少年團/Megan Thee Stallion
14:36:23留給你的愛/吳汶芳
14:40:58My Love/田馥甄
14:48:19Dear WOMAN/SMAP
14:54:09黑暗的盡頭/Crispy脆樂團
15:04:07鹹汫/曹雅雯
15:08:41Every Breath You Take/SHANTI
15:12:57同一種調調/周杰倫
15:19:56Hello Bye Bye/9m88
15:22:53Restart/Sam Smith
15:26:382020你在哪裡/小宇-宋念宇
15:35:34Rise Above/Ohashi Trio
15:39:15我要我們在一起/范曉萱
15:44:40壁咚/蔡黃汝
15:49:56愛上你不如愛上海/動力火車/林志炫
15:54:07JUST GIVE ME A REASON/P!nk
16:04:03對你的愛永遠多一點/黎明
16:08:08你會想念我嗎/蘇慧倫
16:12:05和妳一起/B1A4
16:17:38KURA KURA/TWICE
16:21:21宇宙小姐/S.H.E
16:24:19蟲洞/鼓鼓 呂思緯
16:31:39失落沙洲/徐佳瑩
16:36:30我很快樂/周興哲
16:42:22Butterfly/Jason Mraz
16:49:43pongso no Tao蘭嶼/陳建年
16:53:541973/James Blunt
09/01星期三
14:04:37戀愛ing/旺福
14:08:21September/Justin Timberla
14:12:13心情超讚/嵐
14:17:39趕快去睡/李友廷
14:21:13回來/張信哲
14:25:45Promises/The Cranberries
14:35:17Show Me Some/婁峻碩
14:38:41When We Were Young/Adele
14:43:20你把我灌醉/黃小琥
14:50:45Spark/moumoon 沐月
14:55:15I'd Rather Dance With You/Kings of Convenient
15:04:12美麗的情歌/蕭煌奇/曾寶儀
15:08:46沒什麼大不了/ KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
15:12:55Speak Now/Taylor Swift
15:18:52Party到天亮/黃玠
15:23:19Touch My Body/Sistar
15:26:43哈啦全年無休/陳珊妮
15:33:48never mind, let's break/LANY
15:37:34回家/家家
15:43:16寂寞邊界/張棟樑
15:49:36王寶釧苦守寒窯十八年/蕭閎仁
15:54:41找錯遊戲/菅田將暉
16:03:56多情種/優客李林
16:08:30拜託拜託給我一口/焦凡凡
16:10:55STRAY HEART/Green Day
16:16:32不夜城的咖啡店/庾澄慶
16:20:42睡不著/壞特
16:24:38好像都睡了/韶宥
16:32:12The Other Side/SZA
16:36:24你不在/王力宏
16:40:53瑜珈/林采欣
16:47:55跟我去旅行/四個朋友
16:52:14現在就是人生/森山直太朗
i 'd rather be with you 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最讚貼文
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
i 'd rather be with you 在 Freeyon Chung 鍾君揚 Youtube 的最佳貼文
I can’t hide my love for Disney and my desire to sing Disney covers lol This time, Jessica and I decided to step up our game and record this video at Disneyland! Not going to lie, it took a lot of planning and it was a super hot day, but we hope this video can bring you a smile or maybe even a laugh or two :D
HUGE thank you to Popo and Daniel for helping us with this video project! :D
Hope you enjoyed our video and please let us know what you thought of it!
PS Can I please have a chance to play a Disney prince? Pretty please??
#LionKing #IJustCantWaitToBeKing #獅子王 #Disney
~~~~~~~
Subscribe To My YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/FreeyonChungKw...
Like My Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/FreeyonChung
Follow Me On Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/FreeyonC
~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna be a mighty king, so enemies beware!
I've never seen a king of beasts
With quite so little hair
I'm gonna be the mane event
Like no king was before
I'm brushing up on looking down
I'm working on my roar
Thus far a rather uninspiring thing
Oh, I just can't wait to be king!
No one saying do this
Now when I said that
No one saying be there
What I meant was
No one saying stop that
What you don't realize
No one saying see here
Now see here!
Free to run around all day
That's definitely out
Free to do it all my way!
Everybody look left
Everybody look right
Everywhere you look I'm
Standing in the spotlight
Not yet
Let every creature go for broke and sing
Let's hear it in the herd and on the wing
It's gonna be King Simba's finest fling
Oh, I just can't wait to be king!
Oh, he just can't wait to be king!
Oh, I just can't wait...
Just can't wait
To be king!
i 'd rather be with you 在 Pen My Blog Youtube 的最佳貼文
Hi guys! Now I know that Coachella 2018 has come and gone, however I decided to upload a rather fun festival look inspired by it, so today we are going to be playing with colour while doing a simple look that was inspirited by it.
As always, I hope you guys enjoy this look, plus if you have any questions, you can always leave me a comment down below as well.
Hope you all enjoy!
Product Feature: (by order)
Marc Jacobs Coconut Face Primer
Smashbox Camera Ready BB Water in Medium
Urban Decay Weightless Complete Coverage Concealer in Medium Neutral
Breena Beauty Blending Pearl
Laura Mercier Translucent Setting Powder
Kat Von D Mi Vida Loca Palette
Klara Cosmetics Line & Define
Sleek Highlighting Palette in Precious Metals
Ofra Highlighter in Beverly Hills
Edward Bess Quad Royal
Too Faced Chocolate Soleil Bronzer
Make Up For Ever Artist Acrylip in 922
Suva Beauty Keepers of Magic Palette (Shade: Wizard)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Social Media Links ♡
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PenMyBlog
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/shivanibalraj
Instagram: https://instagram.com/penmyblog/
Blog: http://www.pen-my-blog.com
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/shivanibalraj/
Snapchat: shivanibalraj
Business Inquiry: penmyblog@gmail.com | shivani@penmyblog.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Favorite Websites and Discount Links ♡
♡ Fashion:
Christy Ng: 10% total bill with code ‘PENMYBLOG10'
GastonLuga: 15% off on all item with mention of the code ‘penmyblog15’
Hariz Halton : HARIZTEN for a 10% rebate off your entire purchase.
♡ Hair:
Jeff Lee Hair Studio: 10% off on all services with mention of the code ‘PENMYBLOG' | 1st Timers applicable.
♡ Makeup & Beauty:
Claire Organices: SHIVB for a 15% rebate off your total bill.
FOREO: PENMYBLOG15 for a 15% rebate off your total bill.
♡ Nail Art:
BeeQNails : http://on.fb.me/1blWA4K; Mention 'SHIVANI' for a 10% Discount
i 'd rather be with you 在 渡辺レベッカ ☆ Rebecca Butler Watanabe Youtube 的最佳貼文
English cover of "Eine Kleine" by Japanese singer-songwriter Kenshi Yonezu. The title means "A little..." in German. I think the title was taken from Mozart's "Eine kleine Nachtmusic" ("A Little Serenade").
The lyrics were a bit cryptic in places, so hopefully I got the right idea :D The theme seems to be a girl* with low self confidence who finds someone to love, but is constantly worried that it won't last.
*Although the original artist is a male, he sings from a female's
perspective.
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
今日は米津玄師(よねづけんし)の「アイネクライネ」を英語で歌ってみました。
所々分かりづらい歌詞があったのですが、全般の意味を把握して訳せたと思います!あくまでも私の解釈です('◇')ゞ
Enjoy♪
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
曲情報 / SONG INFO
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
米津玄師 / アイネクライネ
Kenshi Yonezu / Eine Kleine (A Little)
Released 2014
Music/Lyrics: Kenshi Yonezu
English Lyrics: Rebecca Butler Watanabe
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
リンク / LINKS
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
■HP⇒ http://BlueEyedUtaUtai.jimdo.com
■Facebook⇒ http://facebook.com/blueeyedutautai
■Twitter⇒ @BlueEyedUtaUtai
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
歌詞/LYRICS
~♪~♪~♪~♪~♪~
The day that you and I first met
Brought happiness I won’t forget
But all along I’ve had a sorrow inside
I’ve learned to take for granted
These feelings of contentment are so strong I’m filled with pain
They lay seeds of an imminent goodbye surely coming any day
And if my living means I take away
Someone else’s only special place
Then I would rather be the gravel upon the ground
And walked on any day
‘Cause then there would be no misunderstandings and no doubt
No, you wouldn’t know we well enough to pick me out of the crowd
How I wish you had a clue of everything I feel for you
How my heart is flying
But I have a secret I can’t tell anyone alive
So I always end up lying
If you only knew the truth that’s deep inside of me
You’d know I’m more cowardly than you could ever see
So why, oh why, oh why…
Even through the pain lingering and rips in the seams
When you are here beside me
I can smile and laugh them away, and say it’s okay
Oh, what a gift you gave me
It’s like everything in my view is fading but you
‘Til you are all that I see
You gave me that miracle and left me wanting more
You called out my name and nothing’s like it was before
Well if it meant you wouldn’t pay the cost
Wouldn't lose your place and wander lost
Then I would gladly sacrifice someone else
Instead of you without a thought
And time and time again, we’re bound to smile as we pretend
We’re blind to the future, living a lie so small but certain
It doesn’t matter how I pray, or how I vow
Every night I’m haunted by the same dream
Where a little twist will come, swallow you and leave me numb
Taking you so far away from me
If you only knew the truth that’s deep inside of me
You’d know that I’m more spineless than you could ever see
So why, oh why, oh why…
Darling, please, tell me we can stay forever this way
Two hands entwined with our love
As we cross uncrossable nights, into the daylight
Where you will go, I’ll follow
And I wonder how I can shine into your closed eyes
All colors of the rainbow
I don’t know if I will be enough for you to stay
But, darling, I hope you don’t mind if I call your name
From the moment I was born, I never felt that I belonged
Screaming, "Let me disappear!" - ‘cause everything felt so wrong
Ever since then I’d been searching for somewhere all along
I could someday be free, and I found you finally
消えない悲しみも綻びも あなたといれば
kienai kanashimi mo hokorobi mo anata to ireba
それでよかったねと笑えるのがどんなに嬉れしいか
sore de yokatta ne to waraeru no ga donna ni ureshii ka
目の前の全てがぼやけては溶けてゆくような
me no mae no subete ga boyakete wa tokete yuku you na
奇跡であふれて足りないや
kiseki de afurete tarinai ya
あたしの名前を呼んでくれた
atashi no namae wo yonde kureta
あなたの名前を呼んでいいかな
anata no namae wo yonde ii kana