paully

Some more old classics:

Describe a lesson that went well

Describe a lesson that did not go so well. What would you do to improve it, if you were to teach that lesson again?

^^ Good letter, Phil, and good result too. Well done!

Personally, I do not think it is worth depositing a copy of your Thai marriage certificate with the GRO and paying whatever the current fee for doing so is. It does not mean that you can get "an official UK recognised document." The original Thai certificate is officially recognised in the UK.

What will be very useful, essential even, in the UK is a certified translation of the marriage certificate from a licensed translators. This, together with the original if necessary, can then be used for any purpose in the UK where a marriage certificate is required.

Agreed, there is no need whatever to 'deposit' a copy of the Thai marriage certificate; it adds precisely nothing to its validity or legality in the UK. Certified translation into English is the necessary step: the translation has to be stamped by the Embassy and the Thai MFA and the original Thai certificate exhibited.

^ It's an easy process to change the name back in Thailand at her local Amphur, they'll give her an new ID card within minutes. But, as 7by7 says, this probably can't be done at the London Embassy.

Could you not change your name by going to the Canadian Embassy and filing a statutory declaration (or whatever the document would be called in Canada) to be witnessed and executed there?

Morons like this deserve everything they get. He looks like an opportunistic, attention-seeking loner who was probably creaming himself when all those people waved their foot-clappers at him.

Yes. An utter nonentity and fantasist seeking his fifteen minutes of fame. Now he's reaping the rewards of having found it.

The OP has sent me his stamps in/out he was clearly in Thailand in 2007.

Indeed - but not exactly on the dates the ECO thought he was, from what the wife said. That could easily be explained, though.

However, as Scouse said, this is not primarily about entry stamp dates in relation to this application. There is a previous issue in the Embassy files which will only come out at the appeal.

hold on, I thought he is denied entry to England? They refused him before. Could be more hearsay that he's on his way to London, we'll have to wait and see where he rears his ugly head next.

Different name on Montenegrin passport.

Technically he might not be the same person as on the books in UK.

For the moment.

But he wouldn't have an automatic right to enter the UK, of course, as Montenegro isn't in the EU. Also, would his passport not have to list previous names, date of birth and birth place? A few hints there to work on ;-)

So, no, I do not see why any request for additional information by the ECO would be unreasonable.

This is my last post on this issue - then we'll have to agree to disagree.

The request for additional information in a case such as the OP's would be unreasonable:

1. As a matter of law, because the ECO has no power in law to make such a request - despite what you think the Regulation says - in my view, the ECO in the OP's case should be robustly informed that this is the position;

2. As a matter of practicality, because 99% of parents would not have a document 'proving' parental responsibility on the basis that there is no need for one; parental responsibility arises through birth, not through a document (except in the case of adoption or care proceedings).

So it appears to me that Flip2000b, and anyone else in the same position, has a choice. Supply the information and obtain an EEA family permit within days, weeks at most; or insist that you do not have to do so and go through a lengthy appeal process which, even if successful, means it could be several years before the child can join you.

I know what I would do.

He may not be able to 'supply the information' - this is part of the point!! The vast majority of parents will not be in possession of a document which grants them parental responsibility, for the simple reason that there is absolutely no need and no requirement to have one, they have parental responsibility anyway because they are the parents of the child. Parental responsibility therefore comes before and is independent from the child's birth certificate, the purpose of which is not to prove parental responsibility. You cannot produce what you do not have. Now do you start to see why any request for additional information by the ECO would be unreasonable?

Paully TVE and yourself have indeed opined that the refusal is wrong. I have attempted to understand why this is so by asking questions. I am sorry that my doing so has offended you; but I was always taught that asking questions aids understanding and learning.

My, possibly ignorant, belief is that until instructed otherwise ECOs will continue to follow the guidance given them and refuse EEA permits from children unless the sponsoring parent supplies some evidence of responsibility, as happened to the OP. That is why I say that it will be up to the courts to decide if this is legal or not; should someone decide to appeal such a refusal.

The ECOs don't have the power to refuse 'unless the sponsoring parent supplies some evidence of responsibility' despite what the Regulation may appear to you to say, 7by7. It would legally be beyond their power to do so, and therefore unreasonable. Guidance is guidance and does not override the law. Parental responsibility is generally a state of being; you have parental responsibility if you are a natural parent when the child is born and keep it until the child reaches adulthood (the exceptions are: if you adopt a child and you are then specifically granted it by a court or if a government agency - social services or children's welfare - acquire it because a full care order is made by a court in relation to that child) it isn't a matter of documentation to prove it. I just don't know how else to explain it, I'm sorry.

where it is established that the sponsoring individual is the parent of a child as claimed, the ECO simply doesn't need to check that s/he has responsibility, as it is a legal given. Custody does not enter in to the equation as, going back to the original point, there is no requirement in law (either the immigrations rules or the European regs) to demonstrate such.

Excellently put, Scouse.

A parent's parental responsibility could only be taken away in practice by a full care order (or its overseas equivalent) being made concerning the child or the child being formally (legally) adopted by another adult. Clearly, this would not apply to 99% of parents and it would be no business of the ECO to demand documentation to 'prove' parental responsibility.

The statement in the ECGs that it is reasonable, in the interest of the child, to establish that the sponsoring parent has parental responsibility does seem to be covered by this.

I'm not the professional, so please explain to me why this is not so; preferably in simple, plain English.

With respect, you're not giving the whole Regulation above: Scouse and I believe that it is a reference to the UN Convention (as argued earlier).

Therefore, it would be more accurate to say: 'in the interest of the child as provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (my emphasis)'.

You've already noted that the UN Convention is, of necessity, a very general document. It does not therefore provide carte blanche for the UKBA to decide what the interest of the child was. A parent simply does not have to have a document proving he or she has parental responsibility - under law a parent automatically has parental responsibility simply by being a parent, unless this has been specifically taken away by a court.

So if the child genuinely appears to be the child of that parent, no further documentation concerning parental responsibility can reasonably be required, unless the UKBA is in receipt of specific information that a court order about the child has been broken (ie the child has been abducted).

^ That's excellent advice as usual from you, 7b7.

It is a little disappointing to read this:

i have supplied all relevant info to solicitor but it seems that it has not been used or seen when questioned about this via email the answer was please send letter and more evidence to me as soon as possible for appeal

Naturally, I don't know your solicitor or what he or she actually did in terms of work, but one would have hoped that all relevant information and documentation would have been included with the original application. But you need to concentrate on the appeal first.

Although we have been using the word "custody" the ECG paragraph I linked to earlier does not

In order to protect the interests of minors, ECOs should ensure that they have established parental responsibility for children applying for EEA family permits as direct descendants of EEA nationals........

(My emphasis)

I still feel that Regulation 21 Para 4(b ) covers this issue,

A relevant decision may not be taken except on imperative grounds of public security in respect of an EEA national who:-

(b ) is under the age of 18, unless the relevant decision is necessary in his best interests, as provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989.

(My emphasis)

With respect, whilst you both have opined what this regulation doesn't mean, neither of you have expressed an opinion what it does mean.

It would help enormously were you to do so.

You're right about custody, of course, it's the layman's term.

As to Regulation 21 4 b, I personally feel it is principally there to show that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (see the link below) has been specifically referred to in the Regulations and the UKBA as the relevant agency for the UK, one of what the Convention refers to as "States Parties", is therefore abiding by its general provisions, such as:

"Article 3

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare

institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of

the child shall be a primary consideration.

Article 10

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular

basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both

parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article

9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave

any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country

shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to

protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights

and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present

Convention.

Article 11

1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children

abroad."

All very worthy and necessary basic rights for and regarding dealing with children, but very generalised, as is the nature of all such international conventions.

But, that's just my opinion. What do you think, Scouse?

http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/CHILD_E.PDF

I think it's another instance of the UKBA presenting their policy as they would like the law to be rather than as it is.

Agreed, Scouse.

Another practical point to make is that, of course, it is only a minority of parents who actually have formal custody orders (made by court order, or by consent and rubber-stamped by a court) in their favour regarding their children. So, for the UKBA to request to see such documentation from parents, in relation to children accompanying them, as a matter of routine would be unreasonable.

It appears to me that Regulation 21, Para 4(b ) is not about national security; it's about the best interests of the child and so would come under policy.

Therefore it seems to me, for the reasons stated, that the request for a custody document, or similar, is reasonable and is covered by the regulations.

It's not IMHO - and I used to be a practising solicitor, for what it's worth - for the UKBA to decide what is in 'the best interests of the child', they are not a court. As I indicated, issues of custody are essentially family law matters for individuals, not states, to concern themselves with. So I don't agree that it would be reasonable to request a custody document where the child is clearly the child of that parent.

in summary, now FARANG tell me why you let these thai girls make you marry them so quick

But didn't you just tell us mere humble farang why in your opening post - and in excruciating detail?

It seems to me that this means a parent who is the spouse/partner of an EEA national and does not have legal custody of their child can take that child away from the parent who does and bring that child to Europe with an EEA family permit.

would the "reasonable" request for the parent of a child applying for an EEA family permit to provide some evidence of parental responsibility/custody be covered by this?

The parent (natural or adoptive) of a child, who is a spouse/partner of an EEA national, has a perfect right to bring that child into the UK (or another EEA country). A parent - and a mother in particular - cannot 'abduct' her own child unless there is an existing order in place in the father's country or the country where the child normally lives regarding custody which had been broken or the child was the subject of an existing care order (or its equivalent). It would be a matter for the father or the authority in possession of the care order to enforce that foreign court order in the UK (if we use the UK as an example) regarding the child, not a question for the UK authorities to refuse access.

As Scouse said, it's hardly a matter of grave national security for the UK, effectively it's a family law issue. It would not therefore be a 'reasonable request' by the UKBA to ask for evidence of custody.

Of course, if the UKBA were to be in possession of advance information that that particular child had been 'abducted' in clear breach of a foreign court order it would be a very different matter.

I know for certain that there are jobs for English-speaking lecturers in accounting, management and marketing.

As you say, there are such jobs. Fewer positions available for psychologists though that I've heard of.

does anyone know if some of the Thai uni's language institutes (or other sections) have French language programs that employ native speakers as lecturers?

I do - and they have. Try some of the 'better' government universities such as Thammasat, Silpakorn, Kasetsart.

Original Post

I guess licence to reside there as you suggested means the landlord has confirmed he will not object to her living there when she arrives in the UK, am I correct? I will definitely ask for it.

Yes.

Have her added to the council tax due on the property. The council tax assessment can then also be used as evidence of her living there with you.

The estate agent could, alternatively, at the end of the tenancy agreement where it (normally) states 'other conditions', insert your wife's name and state that she is permitted to live there during the tenancy and initial to indicate his/her agreement to this condition. Your wife would indeed have to be there in person to sign the agreement as a named co-tenant, but not for a licence to reside there.

UK is shaping up better than first thought too.

Well, yes, compared to Greece...

"1. it is not 'recommended' to spend more than 180 days as it may prejudice future visa applications - but the logic there is unclear, especially in the case of a 10 year visa.

I'd also like to know if it is possible to stay more than 180 days in the UK in 2 or more visits (with say a 3 month sojourn to europe in the middle)

2. it is not possible, as far as I know, to convert a visitor visa to a settlement visa without returning to Thailand"

1. The logic isn't unclear, manjara - a visitor visa is intended for relatively short stays up to 6 months at a time. If it appears that the visitor visa holder is essentially living in the UK with short breaks abroad in between then they are not, strictly speaking, a visitor and should be in possession of a settlement visa instead.

2. Correct, your wife cannot convert a visitor visa to a settlement visa in the UK. If she wants one she needs to return to Thailand.