kingkenny

I worked directly for 3rd generation for one of the wealthiest families here. one sister and 3 brothers. All are wonderful and caring, very generous and helpful.

He doesn't actually say his vehicle had faulty brakes, he mentions a braking issue in the front vehicle, the car in front braked and he says this is the issue. his speed and weight meant he couldn't stop in time, not brake failure.

when he says he noticed a braking issue in the front vehicle, I assume he means the car in front braked. His issues stem from driving too fast to stop safely, no brake issues in his truck other than he left himself no time to stop.

No, blood wouldn't be pumped but gravity would kick in if there was a wound and it would run out.

Why do we keep saying she, that's clearly a he getting robbed.

Geography, reading, comprehension are not your strong points 😊

The header was changed after my post which is a quote from the actual header to this thread, it said 2022.

And you clearly don't understand sarcasm, German?

Wow, a year ago

Really, over something so trivial, get a life. You can clearly see an overhang at the top whilst the shaft appears square, none of this matters as much as you are trying to make it matter.

There is clearly an overhang on the right hand side, a ledge that makes the picture appear the opening of the chute is rectangular, however looking down the chute it is square.

every 2 minutes? you must be a very slow walker

Losing an election will do that to you.

errrrrr ok

I would also be concerned she has borrowed money against the property.

How stupid are you? Every question you have asked in answered by me in this thread, you are boring to the point of tedium. request for PM is to not answer your questions, it is to free others up from having to read your constant drivel on a subject you clearly have no understanding on, if you want answers to any of your questions read my posts, if your carer can't explain the answers to you then feel free to PM me.

Read through my friend, it is very clear how to get the boy back, now if you want to squabble send me a PM so people are not bored any longer by you, even my backside has fallen asleep.

As I said, you can bore a glass eye to sleep. to solve being repetitive and arguing with someone that clearly has nothing better to do other than arguing I will let you have what you will probably think is some victory. All my thoughts are in this thread and if anyone chooses to read them, followed by the tripe you have written they are free to do so.

I never said it would solve the issue, I am focussed on what the law is and who has legal custody of the child in this instance, and if the father chooses to exercise his rights then yes, the child will be returned to the father and will be under his custody until he either gets married or reaches 20 years of age.

You said this on page 1, I already countered that, please read below, this is factual: The child is subject to parental control of the parents until the child is legally determined to be an adult. Adulthood occurs when the child reaches the age of majority which is 20 years old in Thailand or when the child gets married. Until this time, parents have rights and obligations to their child. In this instance the father has legal custody of the child.

I have read both your posts. I am not sure how doing the correct thing is rocking the boat. In 19 years I have had 2 dealings with the courts, both successful, both related to employees. It's the fear of doing the correct thing that allows the bad apples to function.

Right let's take these one by one: The father has legal custody of the son, I assume we agree on this? If at any point he says the son is to be returned then this needs to happen, I assume we agree on this? If the son is with the mother when the father instructs he is to be returned it is up to the mother to ensure he is returned or picked up, I assume we agree on this? If we don't agree on this I can only assume you have no real understanding of the laws related to this. As for my situation, I have full custody of both my sons, I allow them to see their mother as when they want, if I call and say they are to be returned she knows to return them as she understands I can just block her access in the future. It is easy to say you would walk door to door in a condo building, in the real world however in a situation where the father understands this is a temporary situation that if it goes any longer HE HOLDS ALL THE CARDS LEGALLY. Yes he can go to the school and collect his son, even take the divorce documents with him to show the school who has full legal custody, but would it solve the issue? As for the police, I am sure in such a situation they will do what is legally correct or very simply you move it higher ups the chain of command, are you one of these cowards that just accept their lot here, scared to engage official due to horror stories about the friend of a friend on this forum? There are 2 things at play here, one is doing what he is fully entitled to do under the terms off the divorce, the second is allowing a cooling period, which he appears top be doing but that can't be allowed to go on indefinitely.

You could bore a glass eye to sleep. Where do I say the mother can be legally forced to return the child? I say legally the child is the custody of the father and therefore should he demand the return of the son then this is what needs to happen. How that happens is another matter. Why is it suspect about not knowing where the ex wife lives? I know the condo where my ex wife lives but I have no idea which floor or room number, should I gain entry and go floor to floor knocking on each door, it happens, people don't always know where others live irrespective of whether it is not the way to the child school or not. As for your last comment, we can't face a relationship if the other person does not want that.

Yes, even a fool can determine the answer to your question, clearly you can not so let me help you. At no point did I say the were acting outside the law, well without knowledge of their intentions we assume this. The fact remains the father has full legal custody, if at any point he tells the mother the son is to be returned then she must return him, its not rocket science where the law comes into this. If you keep up with the thread you will see the father does not know where she lives so he can't pick him up, so yes, the mother should arrange return. I have not said at any point the boy is being held against his will, but I will say it is not relevant whether he is held against his will or not, the fact is the father has full legal custody, now pay attention to this bit as this negates any other argument you might want to put forward or any defence you want to give to the mother, I will repeat it, the father has full legal custody, this remains in force until the boy is either 21 or married. Maybe you do not understand what full legal custody means, it means irrespective of the boys or the mothers wishes when the father says the boy needs to be returned then the boy needs to be returned.