kingkenny

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.

Without having the time to read the whole thread back I am not sure I have accused the mother, or the son of breaking the law, correct me if I am wrong. If she refuses to return the son then that is another matter, irrespective of the sons wishes.

Legally, the father has custody of the son, it is not rocket science, even a fool can determine the answer to your question from my comments in this thread.

Completely missing the point that as per the divorce agreement this kid has to live with him, stop missing the point, go and crack open another beer and sit there in your undies, this whole conversation seems beyond your comprehension.

Which is irrelevant to the situation. I refer you to my previous 'useless diatribe' answer.

His whole post was useless diatribe, none of it holds water so irrespective of whether you were agreeing with all or part, you were agreeing with nonsense. The legally binding divorce document ensure custody until the child is 20 or marries, he just needs to enforce the document of the clid tries to move away, this is not rocket science. Sorry if the target text disturbs your sensitivities, its a cut and paste

It answers nothing, its useless diatribe. 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.

ah so you have basically woke up this morning and decided to post a load of nonsense. Its not about trying to force the boy, its about accepting a legally binding a agreement that the son lives with his father and all the crying or Thainess in the world does not change this fact, Sure the boy might run away again blah blah blah blah. On another note, when I moved here 19 years ago I did not see a counter at the airport where we are supposed to surrender our testicles and just bow down to our Thai overlords, is this a relatively new counter?

Lot's of 'guesswork' in this post my friend. Can you provide proof for any of these claims such as mysterious defacto clauses and problem farangs i.e a foreigner with a legal right trying to do the right thing, and the 'Thais' that you mention assuming that none of them will actually do their job? Edited to add the below: 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.

The point is however according to his Ampur papers the child can't leave as he has full custody, the police responsibility will be to handle that, not his visa status bases on the child living with his mum against a legal document that both parties entered into. This is all the more reason to ensure that agreement is kept.

Semantics and pedantry, either she drops them off or I pick them up, its not a fixed arrangement and depends on various circumstances, its easy for us because she lives within a few km, its not about a long trip to get them. The main fact is I have full custody and she can see them with my permission, that could be for a week, a month, a day, its not a fixed time, however if she turned bandit and decides to keep them (this might help with this wording) then I would act.

For me, I would only get the police involved if she was being difficult about returning my sons to me, once that happens its a more slippery slope but I trust that you know more about this particular situation than me, and unless I am put in that situation then I can't honestly say how I would handle it. Good luck, hope it all works out.

I divorced recently and kept full custody via the ampur of my 2 sons, thankfully my ex still sees them occasionally, they can stay with her occasionally also, I have no issues with this and as my sons are younger there is no running off to be with their mum, quite the opposite in fact, whilst with her they call me and ask when they can come home (She doesn't mistreat them, they just prefer to be in a comfy house rather than her small condo). To answer your question, and I could be wrong, my belief is it is legally binding and if she refuses to send the kids home, or if she disappears with them (the terms do say she can only see them with my permission after giving reasonable notice, I wrote the terms) then I can enforce it via the police. It was also nice producing the document at the airport when I was taking my sons overseas and immigration insisted they had to call her, they soon backed down on that when they saw the document so it must hold some power.

Ex RAF? Have you not tried the Royal British Legion in Pattaya?

wow, she has 3 children and she is only 13 years and 2 months old.

They are not the same sex though, who writes this drivel.

I used my parents address, different surname and I have never lived at this address, no issues in receiving the card which arrived the following day. I have had this now for over 12 months without any issues. I log in regularly to the app to check the balance so if they are checking I guess they would see a Thai IP regularly. I guess if you don't cause a problem then they just let you get on with it. I get the occasional deposit into it from family for my sons birthday and Christmas, I don't use it for withdrawals as I give my sons the equivalent in THB. I can only speak of my experience so far.

slowest people on the planet, I get frustrated walking behind, or getting served in a shop, or waiting for some aunty to realize she has to pay at the supermarket and only get her wallet out of her bag at the end of the transaction delaying the process.

Just to be clear, a UK address.

It does not matter what I have in this context, the fact is the bank, Monzo, did not ask for any of this when I applied online for the account, they simply wanted an address to send the card to, which arrived the following day. The ID required in this instance was a picture of me, holding my passport open at the ID page, nothing else was needed for the standard bank account. If I want a CC or overdraft etc then they would require more documents, I just wanted a simple saving account, with app access and a debit/ATM card.

I live here, 19 years, I reside here. not rocket science mate.

at no point did I say I knew how it worked for Thailand residents, I am a Thailand resident, I clearly say I opened it when I was back in the UK. Stop looking for fights, do yourself a favor, read what is written then digest it.