MangoKorat

48 minutes ago, shift99 said:

I've read stories that even if the parent has managed to obtain parental rights/joint custody, it is difficult to enforce the agreement for visitation/access to my child and so on. Eg. The mother can deny my access or become "unavailable" when I go over to visit and each time I would have to go back to the court. There could be no end to it. Is that true? What can be done?

I can't help you much but I had some experience with Thai Family Courts many years ago.  As you probably know, the starting position in Thailand is that custody lies with the mother. However, to deny you reasonable access the mother would have to prove you are unfit.

That said, I found the Thai Family court to be very fair and they look dimly on a parent that denies access without good reason.  You need to speak to a decent lawyer but I'm pretty sure they will advise you that once a court registered access agreement is made, it can be enforced if access is denied or the mother becomes awkward in other ways. I can't be 100% on this but I don't think you would need to go to court each time you visit if access was denied.

I had a similar problem in the UK where previously agreed access was denied and I then went to court and obtained a court order.  The police would not get involved until there was a court order but after that they did and the order applied to all future visits, not just one.  I don't think the Thai system will be much different.

Be aware though, that in granting an access order, the court is likely to request an order for maintenance is made.

Regardless of the country, I would always recommend that access agreements are formal rather than just something agreed between each partner - people and circumstances change, as I learned to my cost.

As for a Thai lawyer, which part of Thailand are we talking about?

7 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Towards end of your current permission of stay obtain a "60 day extension to visit wife"

This will push your window to obtain annual extension (12 months) back by 60 days. 

Genuine question - trying to understand the OP's question but as many people do, he talks about his marriage visa ending when I believe he actually means his extension of stay. That being the case - are you saying that a 12 month extension of stay can be extended by 60 days?

4 hours ago, snowgard said:

But what you wanna do if a shareholder want to sale his share? If him go to court for get the money for it? And 100% him can sue you.

You have to pay him out or risk the outcome will be that him is just a nominee and the company construction is illegal.

At latest if you die the shareholders want THEIR PART and your heritage have pay him/her out.

I'm not promoting company ownership - quite the opposite. I was simply pointing out that the information posted was incorrect.

5 minutes ago, susanlea said:

You are making up stories about me. I never said it does not happen. 

 

 

You know very well what your implication was.

21 minutes ago, Hummin said:

So not an issue for me. To be true, I never had to chase girls anywhere, therefore Im mayby more patient, and take my time.

Well not everybody's the same.  Some prefer to pay, some prefer to play around for as long as they can.  I'll happily admit to previoulsy being the former and now to being the latter.  Nothing wrong with no strings.

It may seem strange to some but not all girls are looking for anything serious - there are plenty that are also looking for no strings.  Ask around and learn just how many Thai girls have a regular boyfriend and what they call a gig.

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

You seem to be making up stories and showing your ignorance of standards. Everyone knows bad things happen daily and some minors get up to no good. That does not make it right. No sensible adult thinks 14yos should be having babies and not be at school.

I'm not making up any stories and I didn't say it was right for any 14 year old to have a baby - can you read?  Or is this just simply a game of one-up-man-ship? 

I simply said that you are naive for thinking that 16 year old Thai girls are all in school.

There's a lot of bad things that go on in Thailand - they're just facts.  I have no 'ignorance of standards' - you're preaching to the wrong person. Thai government are the ones who could do something about it but they've been failing badly for years.

4 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Which is good in your opinion?

All I am saying is that you seem to think 16 year olds are in school - the implication being that they are not engaging in sexual activity.  The amount of 'under age' single mothers would seem to suggest otherwise.

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Which is good in your opinion?

Where did I say that?  Its just a fact.  Thailand doesn't produce any figures to my knowledge and if they did they would probably be fake but the country must hold the record for teenage single mothers.

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

Where does a 40yo even meet a 16yo? 16yos are in school.

I'm not suggesting anyone goes out looking for a 16 year old but you are more than a little naive.  Have you any idea how many 16 year olds are well into motherhood in Thai villages? I know of a 12 year old with a kid and plenty of 14/15 year olds have them.  I can assure you than none of them are 'immaculate conceptions'.

Just now, Hummin said:

As you so nicely put it, how can a 18 year old like a old wrinkled man, hairy? Beer belly? Smell? 

Don't be so hard on yourself.

1 minute ago, Chivas said:

Furthermore the chief immigration minister produced an article which was here on Thaivisa at the time and I've got it saved probably on other laptop where you have 24 hours to produce your passport to a police station if asked to do so

 

I dont know absolutely anyone these 32 years who routinely takes their passport out day to day walking about their daily business. (banking excepted obviously)

I really don't care what the Chief Immigration officer produced - my mate was taken to Lumpini police station along with about 15 others and I had to get his passport.  Maybe I shoulld have told the cops that I'd report them to their chief?

My passport was with me on several beaches in Koh Chang and Koh Kood just last week.

I don't remember claiming any laws state you must carry your passport so what are you banging on about?  I simply said what happened to a friend.

8 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

But coming here a stating that 18 year old girls are offering you to bang them is easy. Just to get up your wallet as they always want you to pay. Means you are buying sex, dude!

Another aspect that might make you think, but I think your way of normal thinking pattern is long gone. Do you have a wife? And would still bang an 18 year old that offered? In that case it says a lot about you, and I feel truly sorry for your wife. Also you might not be married and just what we call a sex tourist. In that case you have chosen to be alone and bang as much as you can. How about when you get really old? Maybe the last 10 years of your life. How will you feel sitting there alone, and have no one around you, no one to talk to. It will be very quiet and lonely, right

I don't remember saying that any 18 year olds have offered me anything.  What I said was if they did, I would.

No, I'm not married, not anymore.  If you want to call me a sex tourist, I'm fine with that.  You actually know nothing about my life but I see you regularly comment on other people's expoits as if they're some kind of pervert - you are clearly lacking in testosterone so you won't understand normal male sexual behaviour.

6 hours ago, brianthainess said:

this one.

Right, I wasn't aware of that line.  The Bangkok - Vientiane high speed line will not be ready for many years.  The Bangkok-Korat section is supposed to open in 2026 but if the M6 motorway (4 years late and counting) is anything to go by, that will be doubtful.

2 hours ago, Chivas said:

Anyone who carries their passport around with them 24/7 needs their head examining.

On the remote chance it happened to me I'd deal with the fallout thereafter.

 

Nobody whatsoever is being locked up indefinately until "someone goes and gets their passport"

Firstly, I have carried my passport with me for at least 25 years. Must remember to book am appointment to get my head examined.

Secondly, were you at one of those clubs at the time?  I can assure you that people were not being released until their passport was released - I should know as I had to go get my mates from his hotel room.

You seem to be having a problem using the quote facility.  After you've clicked quote and the box opens, just type under the quoted text. You don't have to write your reply in a separate post.

On 5/12/2024 at 8:19 AM, Chivas said:

Has anyone here solely walking around on foot every been approached by a random Police officer  ? (so not on motorbike car etc etc)

Yes. About 5 years ago there was a clamp down in Bangkok looking for overstayers, illegals etc. There were reports of people being stopped on the street in the Sukhumvit area for passport checks. I was in a taxi at the Asoke junction traffic lights when 2 coppers approached and asked to see my passport. 

As far as I can remember though, that's the only time I've been checked in 22 years.

There was also a time around 7 years ago when clubs in upper Sukhumvit were raided.  Those raids were targeted/drugs related though and not random passport checks. Both Thais and foreigners were subjected to urine tests. Any foreigner that couldn't provide a passport on the spot was locked up until someone could get their passport for them.

On 5/6/2024 at 4:01 PM, Gottfrid said:

Don´t care about that. Your friend is a loser that can´t find a women of his own age in his country. So, just have to travel to see poor young girl to fulfill his dreams. that´s the essence of a pervert.

Well there's a hell of a lot of us 'losers' then.

Would I want a relationship with an 18 year old?  Not a chance.

Would I bang an 18 year old that offered it? Absolutely!

You're welcome to as many women of your own age with boobs like envelope flaps and stretch marks as you can handle Mr Temple-goer. I'll stick to something that remains reasonably attractive.

7 hours ago, brianthainess said:

Laos is a very beautiful country and now with the Fast Train, overnight bus trips are now a 2hr train ride. The language is also understood by Thais.

Which Fast Train is that?

On 5/7/2024 at 4:05 AM, bkk_mike said:

Not the law. At least not for over 25 years.

I think you're misremembering when Thai females who married a foreigner and then were granted another nationality, lost their Thai nationality. (It was only women, not men, that this happened to.)

They tried to get Tiger Woods to apply for Thai nationality, and he refused because of how his mother had been forced to lose her nationality. So, I believe it was the 1997 constitution, got rid of that rule and Thais have had no problems with dual nationality since then. It didn't hurt that you also had one of King Bhumibol's daughters, literally a princess in the Thai royal family who married an American and whose kids had dual nationality.

No, I wasn't 'misremebering' anything. The rule did exist but as has been established in posts after mine, it was done away with.

On 5/11/2024 at 5:07 PM, snowgard said:

These companies are created just so farangs can own a house!!! They don't have a real business. That's why they are illegal!!! And the shareholders can withdraw the farang completely at any time if they want. Because they own 51% of the company!!!

And the farang can't even go to court without endangering himself.

Whilst I agree that using a Thai Limited Company to own land is against the law if the business is not actually trading and/or has no reason to own land, your statement is incorrect.  If the company is correctly structured and the Thai shareholders shares don't include voting rights, they cannot get rid of the foreign shareholding/directorship. The Thai shareholders though, may have to prove where they got the money from to buy the shares and that they bought them for investment purposes. Your wife's granny might have a problem claiming she's a legitimate investor.

There are several types of business where a company with foreign shareholding can own land legally - a property development/investment business for example.  A shophouse, used for a business that a foreigner is legally allowed to be involved in should also be OK.

However, I doubt that a Thai court would be convinced that a company owning just one piece of land/house and renting that out to a director was a legitimate property investment business. It all hangs on that word - circumvention.

They may exist but I'm yet to see an example of a Thai Limited Company with foreign control owning a piece of land legally when we are talking about single plots containing just one house. Most seem to be fake companies, submitting accounts and paying a little tax - as such I'm sure that each one of them is at risk if they are investigated.

What I find unfair, if its true, is that when such 'fake' companies are discovered, is that the penalty is forfeiture.  Deeming the ownership contravenes the Thai land laws and ordering the sale of the property would be a much fairer way of dealing with the matter.

Personally, I find the Thai land laws archaic and xenophobic, they cause lots of problems for married couples and should be reformed. I don't see why a foreigner married to a Thai can't own property but have to sell it within a set time should they divorce - much like the rules on what happens when a Thai wife dies and wills a property to a foreign husband.

16 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

The most serious side of owning through the property route is that the company must be trading and it must, if required, demonstrate a need to own property. 

That should of course say 'owning through the company route'.

On 5/9/2024 at 5:18 AM, Jenkins9039 said:

Not really.

 

Under Thai law, if you divorce your wife you / she gets 50% each.

Under Thai law - In court. The justice system here follows the law... no whims of a Thai in the court room... there's three judges for that reason.

 

Under Thai law if you use a company, it's 49% ownership opposed to 51%.

Its easy to see why people often do the wrong thing but think they've done the right one. That's why its wise to use a decent Thai lawyer rather than believe what you read on online forums.

'Under Thai law, if you divorce your wife you / she gets 50% each' - That is not correct. For example, if your wife owned the land or the house before your were married, you would only be entitled to 50% of any uplift in value since the date of your wedding.

'Under Thai law if you use a company, it's 49% ownership opposed to 51%' Potentially incorrect depending on the rules in play in your area. Some Land Offices will refuse to register a property in a company name if the foreign ownership is over 39% (and possibly other percentages).

The most serious side of owning through the property route is that the company must be trading and it must, if required, demonstrate a need to own property.  If that can't be proven, such ownership is in direct contravention of the Thai land laws as the company has clearly been set up in order to circumvent those laws. There is a specific clause in the laws regarding circumvention. 

Those who simply pay a book keeper to make up a set of fake accounts and pay a little tax each year for the 'company' that 'owns' the land, will always be at risk.

15 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Whatever the reason for death or the man's background, I'm suprised that the Thai authorities consider it  OK to name him before they've contacted his family.

Why puzzled Mr Somebody?  Civilised countries don't release deceased's names until the family have been notified.  Would you like to find out your son was dead via a social media story?

11 hours ago, Korat Kiwi said:

I was glad when Thailand got rid of that bastard departure tax. What a pain that was. 

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

As said before the airlines said NO last time. Do you think anything has changed? What about land border crossings? What about Thai nationals? What about people with work permits? What about people who have insurance already? I'm sure this list can be expanded. Are the airlines meant to sort this out? Simplistic, poorly thought out policies often have very complex implemenations. This is one of them and to say just add it to the ticket obviously is too simplistic. That's why it didn't happen before. 

As has already been stated, the departure tax was never 'got rid' of - it was transferred to the airlines who I guess will have added it to their ticket prices.