Awk

I visited a handful of lawyers in Chiang Mai, and thought I'd chosen a good one, but midway through my family case I, with the help of a more knowledgeable and experienced farang, understood my lawyer was really just "ok". Better than many other I suspect, and honest too, but just "ok". I give him a half-hearted recommendation as he was the best I found in Chiang Mai and he speaks English well enough too. His website is here: "http://www.chiangmai-legalbusiness.com/team.php" I visited or talked to most other lawyers I found recommended here, but mistakenly or not, did not feel confident in them.


Midway through my case I changed lawyer to one in Korat, and paid for him and his expensive interpreter (I can't speak Thai unfortunately) to fly up to Chiang Mai as many times as it required. The case was very very important to me, far too important to worry about air fare, hotel, and his very expensive (but good) interpreter. I did worry a lot about taking the risk of changing from a lawyer I now knew as "ok", to a lawyer I had only "interviewed" two times, but fortunately he ended up being even better than hoped. No website for him unfortunately, only a phone number, and you'll need to speak Thai if you want to call him (though you can call his independent interpreter too).

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

It's pretty obvious that, whatever it was called and whatever the Thai authorities thought or think (assuming they do), the annual declaration of income could not possibly be verified by ANY embassy even though you produce documents in support. Embassies are not a detective force. All ANY of them have ever done in reality is to witness YOUR signature on some form of affidavit or statutory declaration, with or without some supporting doco.

Your claim to know how all embassies in Thailand verify income is very impressive.

To get such a letter from my embassy I had to in the past produce salary slips for

the last handful of months as well as the previous years tax report from the IRS.

Of course these documents can be forged, as most other things, but certainly it would be much easier for my embassy to verify the documents as genuine than some Thai office.  Perhaps the penalty for forging government documents like the tax report from IRS would also put a damper on most such thoughts.

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

If the Thais NOW want REAL proof of income, then demonstration of funds moving more or less regularly into Thailand will be the only way to do it, I should think.

Which would be completely meaningless as there is nothing, except the annoyance of some transfer fees, from stopping anyone from transferring the same money back and forth every month.

10 hours ago, gppower said:

 

Muscle factory is really good and since my last visit they have built new rack stations for squat and olympic weightlifting. As I mentioned, the only problem is that there is no air con. I can see that doesn't bother the other people in the gym, most probably because they are used to the heat.  If you are not though you come out of there soaked and drained.  

Mmm, know the feeling.   One gets used to it, but everyone prefers aircon I think.

10 hours ago, gppower said:

The Virgin Active gym is worth a visit though if you say that they have squat racks and free weights. They don't mention a day pass in their website. It is possible that they charge you also with an "activation fee" on top. We'll see. If it becomes too silly I will swallow the bitter pill and suffer at the Muscle factory.....

They have day passes (that's what I usually use since I'm in Bangkok to little to make it a membership worth it).  800 baht per day and no activitation fee, though I think you have to register and fill out some form the first time you go there.   Think the rate gets discounted to 750 baht on subsequent visits, though you might have to ask for it.

Same floor as the cinema and not far from it.

Ask this question in the https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/forum/1-thai-visas-residency-and-work-permits/ group for better answers, but don't think you have anything to worry about regarding an already existing extension based on marriage, as long as you remain married.

If it's an actual visa (i.e., something you got from an embassy outside Thailand), nothing to worry about even if divorced.

I think the only benefit you can have from /not/ taking this to court, but instead making a mutual agreement with the mother, is regarding child custody. Agree with most posters here that your offer is more generous than a court is likely to award. The bigger question is regarding custody, where I don't think 50/50 is a given and would be something your lawyer would need to fight for.

It is also my understanding that there is normally no reason to expect the court will award the mother any kind of alimony from you. It's only for the children.

If 50/50 is what you are happy with, and it's possible to separate with the mother on semi-friendly terms (rather than fighting in court), it may be a better long-term option to offer a bit more than the court would award in a mutual agreement. While expenses for children are to be shared, no court will expect the mother to pay half the fee of an international school, so if you want your children there, you will be the one paying that in full anyway I think.

One should also be aware of the risk that a bad mother may just take the child alimony for herself, and expect you to fot the bill for anything but the daily food. Meaning when the children are with you, you will be the one paying for all clothes, toys, books, and whatever else the children need and the child alimony will mostly be used by mother for her own needs. That is why I would advocate to fight to keep the stipulated child alimony to the minimum, as you can always add more as needed later.

Muscle factory looks great from the pictures I see.

Virgin Active in EMQuartier is good, but on the expensive side. 800b/day, but if it's just for a few days, maybe it's ok? Includes towels and even gym clothes if you don't have your own.

Yeah, the gym looks posh and attracts those who like posh gyms, but they have squat racks, you can deadlift, and they even have a separate olympic weightlifting square.

On 8/13/2018 at 7:12 AM, connda said:

In 2018 you're telling me that in order for the populace to understand the physical damage that full contact martial arts do to a developing human body that an official study needs to be made?  At a minimum those 15 and under should be wearing protective gear (head-gear, heavy, oversizes gloves, foot pads) and rounds should be scored based on technical points scored as opposed to the physical damage done to the opponent.  After 18?  Then it's the individual's decision.

 

 

Protective head gear in boxing has been a question of debate for a long time, with a fair amount of research done in order to determine whether it is a good idea or not.  Not sure what knowledge you have which makes studies about this unnecessary for you,  but people with considerable knowledge about it have expressed serious doubt, based on actual studies, that using head gear in boxing is beneficial to the fighters. 

Yes, it protects against superficial cuts, but it may considerably increase the chance of more serious damage to the head.  There are several reasons for that, including the head becoming a larger target with the helmet on, thus easier to hit, leading to the fighter getting hit more often (the reduced vision when wearing a helmet can also contribute to this).  Another is that fighters may be less careful, thinking the helmet will protect them.  A third one is that the helmet, making the head heavier, may increase the force experienced by the brain in some cases.

One might also want to consider that the Olympic games no longer enforce head gear in boxing, ostensibly because there has become more and more doubt that using the head gear is beneficial to the fighters health.

So I think there are many reasons, even in 2018, to consider the results of official studies.  Not everything that seems obvious is actually correct.

Congratulations. This is further conformation about how extraordinary interested in the child's well being the Thai family courts are, regardless of whether you're a foreigner or not. I think you must also have made an extraordinary good impression on the court for them to decide that it's beneficial for your your daughter to live with you all the time like that when you're off work.

23 minutes ago, phetpeter said:

So mugged to stay back a year and pay again...hmm! Theres more to that than do the year again. Could not summer hols schooling. or additional studies to catch up..still only 7 years old the child must have felt really insecure at being left behind while her class mates for 2 years or longer moved on, would love that for my child for sure! NOT! The child is only figging 7 years old, she still a baby!

I don't know what things were tried, but do know the girl had a private teacher coming to teach her a few times a week. Not enough I guess.  Another parent was also warned about their daughter in grade three, and the father worked more with her on homework and it became ok.

Felt sad for the girl when I heard it, but she looked like she was doing ok anyway.

I don't think "pay again" had anything to do with it, and it sounds like a ridiculous thing to even think at that time, with 10+ more years to go anyway.

It's even more ridiculous considering you first said they will not fail you, and next when someone tells you they will fail you, you postulate that it is so they can get paid for an extra year.  Was logic and reason not a subject at your school?  Or did you attend one of those school you talk about, where they will never fail you?
 

8 hours ago, phetpeter said:

Sorry to pop your bubble, Int schools will not fail your child. 

 
My daughter's class mate at an international school did not progress to grade three, but had to do grade two again.  So not sure what bubble it is you're popping.

I'm sure there are some really good Thai schools, considerably better than the international school I refer too, and I'm equally sure that most of us common farangs would neither know where to find such schools, nor have a child talented and hard-working enough to get admitted into that school.  

Ignore the people here telling you to not ask questions on the forum here and "just go talk to a lawyer" instead.  You need to read the forum to have any idea of whether the lawyer you talk to has half a clue or not.  My experience with lawyers here is not good.  On the other hand, there are a few knowledgeable people here on the forum.  Some very knowledgeable.

I recommend contacting this woman (a translator) whose business card I attach, and the lawyer she works with, Mr. Terd.

They are both based in Korat, which is some hours away from Bangkok by car, but unless you get other trustworthy recommendations for local lawyers, I would recommend to not let that small distance bother you.  

If you are in Bangkok, they are much closer to you than they were to me, and I still found it worthwhile to have them fly to the city I was in with all the extra expenses that entailed.  I'd say changing to this team, even if already half-way through a somewhat similar court case, and already with what I think was half-decent lawyer relatively to most others, was the smartest thing I did and I am happy to recommend them.

9 hours ago, cooked said:

Well I told you about the police. And money.

That's it really.

That's it?  Does not sound helpful at all.

I too am curious what the answer to the OP's question is.  If you search for older posts by another poster here (MikeyIdea), you will find information about the procedure.

If I remember correctly there may unfortunately be quite a bit of work and time involved if a mother refuses to follow the court order.  I suggest reading his old posts, and use what he says to validate what your lawyer tells you.  And for others who may want to know, please post an update here regarding what you find out too.

Ya who?  Jabba the hut?

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

They were attempting to leave, having taken the boy, and his passport, from his mother's family's home, without permission.




Having spoken with the mother a few times, I am a little concerned that her hopes are rather unrealistic. She claims the father was happy for her take the boy for a holiday and her sister's wedding in December. She didn't return to Scotland as planned as the boy sustained a nasty leg injury on a motorbike. The boy has now missed a lot of school and she has lost her job. Had the father not taken the action he did, it is my belief that mother and son would have returned to Scotland a couple of months later than planned, and this mess could have been avoided.




She still is planning to return to Scotland. I'm not sure what legal consequences she may face if she does, especially if the father remains in prison in Thailand.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 



Sounds like the mother is spinning a fairy tale.  I think the information reported by the media, about the father not allowing her to travel abroad with the child (which may or may not have been warranted), but the mother still taking the child abroad without permission, and then not giving the father any way to contact the child or knowing how his son is, sounds more plausible.  



 



Had the father thought the mother would return with his son soon, he may not have taken the action he did.  As it was, it seems he had no way of knowing if that woman would ever come back with his son, and thus acted how he did.  In hindsight, the shit really hit the fan for him and this other fella helping him and I'm sure they would have done things differently.



 



I'm not sure exactly what charges are holding the father and the other gentleman in prison, but I think it's a sure thing that the charges are brought on by the mother, as afaik, she's the only one who can claim there was anything illegal in what the father did.   I think it's also a good bet that the reason they are still in prison is that the mother is refusing to drop the charges.



 

On 2/28/2018 at 11:20 PM, JLCrab said:

The Royal Thai Immigration Police could arrest Mr. Smith and Mr. Felton at BKK and charge them with abduction even before the Mother might  know that the child was missing.

No, they could not.  It is not illegal to travel abroad with a child you have shared custody over. 

It only becomes illegal if another guardian, also with shared custody, reports to the police that she does not consent to you traveling abroad with your child.   

8 hours ago, JLCrab said:

If Jodie Smith and Mr. Felton are indeed charged with criminal abduction it may not be up to Mr. Smith and Jintra to do anything.

And pray tell, who in this world do you think can accuse Mr. Smith of "criminal abduction" of his own child, if not the child's other custodian, the mother?

14 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

BBC says NO, (August 2011) ..... who to believe?

"British authorities have no jurisdiction in Thailand, which is not a signatory of the Hague Convention, and abduction is not considered a crime in the Thai Kingdom."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-14737210

 

•  

BBC is wrong.    The other parts I believe are more or less correct.

Like some others I think there must be a bit more to this than just the father trying to leave Thailand with his son as normal, then being caught in a random spot check during passport control.  I don't feel the need to insinuate anything bad about the guy who apparently tried to help the father though, as some here do (not you).  Also because there are simpler explanations

Were the father to simply lack permission from the mother upon departure, which Thailand immigration does spot checks on, by all accounts I've read he would simply have been turned away together with his son, with nothing more happening.   "Get the permission paper and come back next day, thank you."

I at one time tried to get a qualified answer for how long it would take from the time one parent tried to report the other parent without permission leaving Thailand with a child the departing parent had shared custody over,  till the departing parent would face trouble at the border.  I did not get any reliable answer, but from what I guess happened here, the Thai authorities move fast in cases like this. And the mother must have know what to do and who to call too.

My sympathies to the father.  With better luck, this all might have gone very different for him and his son.   While his, as I understand it, verdict for full custody in the UK will not mean much in Thailand (because Thailand has not signed the Hague convention of 1996, only the one of 1980 regulating child abduction), possibly a good lawyer could use it as mitigating evidence of some sort.   I can recommend one for cases like this.

2 minutes ago, Fish Head Soup said:

Thailand only signed up in April 2016. So the story the poster recounted that you rubbished was probably correct.

According to who?

This article from 2012 references Thailand as a signatory to the convention:

http://www.thailawforum.com/blog/girl-returned-to-mother-after-thailand-abduction
 

This says Thailand signed in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

14 hours ago, suzannegoh said:

Hang the bastard. I know a Thai woman who had that happen, her French ex abducted her 8 year old daughter back to France rather than try to get custody of the kid in a Thai court. It absolutely devastated the mother, and since Thailand isn't a signatory of the Hague Treaty On Child Abduction, once the Frenchman got the kid outside of Thailand there was no legal avenue open to her to get the kid back.

Nonsense.  Here is a list of the countries who have signed the Hague convention regarding child abduction: 

https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/InternationalFamilyLaw/Pages/HagueConventionOnTheCivilAspectsOfInternationalChildAbduction.aspx

Yes.  Thailand is on the list.

12 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I wonder if the child was just travelling on an emergency travel document. I would imagine the son was not holding his passport when he was playing in the street where his dad found him. This may have put airport officials on alert.

 

There is no reason to wonder about that for those who read the article linked: "As soon as Joleon saw his dad he asked to go home as he didn’t want to stay there. So they entered the house just to get Joleon’s passport."

I believe the only rights you would have to get your child back would be those rights you could enforce under what is
called the Hague convention regarding child abduction.

This would involve you contacting the British authorities documenting to them that the child was domiciled in the UK until mother without permission took them to Thailand and is now refusing to return them home (the place they were domiciled). The British authorities would then contact the Thai authorities, requesting the Thai authorities do what is necessary to return the children. The Thai authorities would then be required to make sure the children are returned, if the Thai authorities can find the mother and child, and if the mother does not successfully fight the request in the Thai courts. I'm not sure how much effort the Thai authorities would put into tracking down the mother and child, and then returning the child by force.

Sounds complicated and risky, does it not? As the first reply indicated: keep your child's passport safe and do whatever you need to do to prevent the child from leaving the UK.

23 hours ago, Trujillo said:

"OP without a photo I'm going to assume we have very different ideas of what is gorgeous."

Oh she was, trust me. 

I believe you.  The way your post is worded it is obvious it is not an everyday occurrence for you, so the suggestions of dropping into some random bar is boring.  You will not find these women there.

23 hours ago, Trujillo said:

As I said at the outset, it's not about how to keep a woman who is 35 years your junior and eight grades higher in looks than you ever were (even 35 years ago), it's about where such a woman could be found. I mean do you keep your eyes open in the supermarket and walk up and make a stone-cold introduction, hoping she doesn't think you are a weirded-out farang? 

Or do you tip the Amazon Coffee girl 1,000 baht for giving you an extra sugar packet? 

There certainly are people in the world with enough "game" to compensate for some considerable difference in age or looks, and who can and do approach women they find attractive at the supermarket or in the queue at 7-11.  With the age gap closing in on 30+ years, it's gonna be harder of course, but if you in addition have a lot of money ...  This not for everyone though, and most of us would probably just give out a "horny weird/creppy guy" vibe if we tried.  Practice makes perfect though, if you do not get arrested first.

23 hours ago, Trujillo said:

The nut of the question here is that if you take bargirls, freelancers and the like off the table (so to speak), where and how would a 65-75 year old man get ahold of such a person. 

 

My best guess: from the high-end "gentleman's clubs" in Bangkok.  I unfortunately have to say I've never even been in one (not interested in paying for company, though I'd go if a rich Thai friend invited me on his dime  ;-), but have read enough and seen enough pictures to get what I /think/ is a fairly correct impression.

At these clubs, you and your mates are having a fun evening out, with good music, good food, and drinks.  You also pay good money for good looking girls to party with you and your friends.  They stand with you and your mates at your table, laugh at your jokes, and keep a decent conversation  going.  

These girls are mostly students or recently graduated students, from decent middle-class families, not hookers, and not going to go home with you that night.   They are hired because they look very pretty, are educated, and can entertain their customers by ways other than taking of their own or your clothes.   They are not hookers, do not look like hookers, and do not talk like hookers.   None of the girls you find in the CM bars would ever get hired at any of these clubs.

To frequent these clubs you need to have some money.  As each night will be expensive  (think prices per night closer to the  bill you get at the karaoke scam places, except that at these "gentleman's clubs" the bill is not a scam of course), any girl there will naturally assume you have at least some money, even if not necessarily rich.   

While you cannot usually pay these girls directly to be your girlfriend, you will get to meet and talk with very pretty and educated girls for an extended amount of time in relaxed settings. 

So basically it's a way to hang out with girls more pretty and sophisticated than you will normally meet as a low-life farang here in Thailand.  Then captivate them with your impressive charm in order to meet privately at some other time, and from then on, progress as on a normal date.

From what I've gathered , you will not have much fun going to such a place alone, and you, or at least someone in your group, needs to speak Thai well.  Most of the men will be well to do businessmen having a boys night out with some pretty company before they go home to their family.

9 hours ago, Danielsiam said:

Anyway until now, I was wrong think it was totally opposite in Thailand, as father without marriage don't have any rights, and could be jailed for long in Thailand for kidnapping as he don't have any legal rights especially.. 

 

You were not wrong.  See the pinned thread in this forum for more information: