Taking Son To Us Without Mother's Consent

[Bob102]

I have a question regarding the legal citizenship status of my one year old son. I am an American citizen and my wife is Thai. My son was born in Thailand and has both Thai and American passports and birth certificates. He even has a US social security number. I am considering the possibility of taking my son to the US against his mother's wishes and without her authorization (without her knowledge either). Without going into great detail I feel she is an unfit mother and lacks the financial resources to raise him properly. I do not understand the legalities of parental custody rights in Thailand and wish to avoid becoming involved with the Thai courts over this.

Can I interpret the statement on the US Department of State website that,"the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be invoked if a child is taken from the United States to Thailand, or vice versa" to mean that it is in fact possible to bring him to the US with any legal hassles.

Would I be in violation of either American or Thai laws should I decide to return to the US with my son? Furthermore, which passport should I use when processing him through immigration?

[Mario2008]

Legaly you won't be n any trouble. That is not to say if what you do is right. Remeber that the chhild will wants his contact with his/her mother and you will hurt both by denying them this.

Also, the mother could still fight you over custody, in Thailand and in the US. In that sense going to the US will not solve anything, unless the mother doesn't have the money to fight for custody.

Note that Thai courts do take the interest of the child as their principle concern and many foreigners have won custody battles. I would at least first discuss things with a lawyer before you leave Thailand.

[Bob102]

Well, at this point we are both on the verge of separation and I have weighed the consequences of this for both sides. Of course I feel bad that he would not be raised by both parents. But I have to consider my son's future and what would be best for him. If I were to leave my son in Thailand his mother would not be able to provide for him financially and he would grow up in a small Issan village in extreme poverty. My wife would likely leave him with her elderly parents who already struggle to provide for 5 of her sisters children while she worked in Bangkok.

She has no financial means to fight for custody or consult with an attorney. Though I don't want to go through the emotional and financial hardships of a long drawn out custody battle in a foreign courtroom. I don't want to play tug of war with my son as my wife is emotionally fragile and has an unpredictable temper.

My main concern is what to expect when I try going through immigration at the airport with my son. Which passport do I use and will I be hassled? Once I arrive in the US how do I explain the situation to the US immigration officers who may question me regarding my son?

[sbk]

Mario has given you excellent advice, I suggest you seriously consider the points he has raised.

[TruthWillOut]

If you pay her child support then they wont be living in poverty and I have to wonder what qualifications you have to say that abducting the child is better for him than staying with the mum. 3 sides to every story, hers, yours & the truth !

[Carib]

A man alone, travelling with a very young child is up for a closer inspection.

Parental abduction is an offence.

You wife was from the same village , with the extreme poverty, yet she was good enough to become your wife, and to have a child with her!

You don't want to play tug of war, no shit..., what are you planning now... Abduction.

You have the arrogance to decide just by yourself what would "be good" for the child.

IMHO a child is always better of with the mother. Like already suggested pay for child support.

[a99az]

A man alone, travelling with a very young child is up for a closer inspection.

Parental abduction is an offence.

You wife was from the same village , with the extreme poverty, yet she was good enough to become your wife, and to have a child with her!

You don't want to play tug of war, no shit..., what are you planning now... Abduction.

You have the arrogance to decide just by yourself what would "be good" for the child.

IMHO a child is always better of with the mother. Like already suggested pay for child support.

I have to agree with Carib, please talk with your wife, you can always visit or have him visit you for hoildays.

[dieter1]

" a child is always better of with the mother."

bullshit ! There are many circumstances where it is better to stay with the father. And -sorry- that´s not just my thinking, it´s how professionals think about it !

second: My advice: speak with a good lawyer, experienced in this kind of ..., before just taking your child to your home country. For example, if you have to fight over custody, the court may see your decision to bring your baby outside the country without knowledge of the mother as a prove, that you are not the best one to care for your child ...

By thai law, you do not have to pay for the mother after divorce. Only for the child. So if the mother would go to Bangkok to work and leave the child to stay with the grandparents, it may be better, the child stay with his father.

But what do I know. I have no information about father or mother. In most cases (this seem to be one of these), in case of divorce, the parents are not able to communicate in a good way, in a way that would be ok for the child. The child in many cases,is just a kind of weapon to fight against each other.

But what is quite clear: If the parents can not find a solution, they both agree, it will always hurt the child. It is always bad for the child, if one parents does not agree. It is a good idea, to get some professional outside help, someone, who tries to help parents to communicate with each other. Do it for your child !

[sbk]

But what do I know. I have no information about father or mother. In most cases (this seem to be one of these), in case of divorce, the parents are not able to communicate in a good way, in a way that would be ok for the child. The child in many cases,is just a kind of weapon to fight against each other.

But what is quite clear: If the parents can not find a solution, they both agree, it will always hurt the child. It is always bad for the child, if one parents does not agree. It is a good idea, to get some professional outside help, someone, who tries to help parents to communicate with each other. Do it for your child !

And this is the crux of the situation here and probably the best advice of the lot. Get some professional outside counselor to solve this issue in an amicable manner, not by kidnapping.

[ThaiBasil]

If you pay her child support then they wont be living in poverty and I have to wonder what qualifications you have to say that abducting the child is better for him than staying with the mum. 3 sides to every story, hers, yours & the truth !

I was thinking the same thing. Okay, he would not be able to see his own son but I believe family values are thought here very well in Thailand. If I was in the same situation, I would pay child support, but thats just because I know my son will be taken care of very good here. I do not want to raise my son back home where everything is consumed by materialism and money and where too many young kids are too spoiled and do not have respect for anything anymore ........

[beano2274]

When you get a divorce in Thailand the rights of the child are taken into consideration. Also the custody of the child is given to one or both parents. If you are only the BF then the Thais will not take it lightly you abducting the child.

Seek professional assistance, if you leave with the child then you are abducting it against it's mothers wishes. And America will also respect the wishes of the Thai Justice system.

You married a Thai woman, she was good enough then but not good enough now, you knew the Thai culture, when it comes to children many mothers leave the child with their families and go to work, it's the culture. They work and send money home to the family. If it is your child take some responsibility, if you do not want her to leave the child with her parents then give her enough money to live and look after the child herself, if not then send her parents the money to look after the baby whilst she is working.

[philo]

A man alone, travelling with a very young child is up for a closer inspection.

Parental abduction is an offence.

You wife was from the same village , with the extreme poverty, yet she was good enough to become your wife, and to have a child with her!

You don't want to play tug of war, no shit..., what are you planning now... Abduction.

You have the arrogance to decide just by yourself what would "be good" for the child.

IMHO a child is always better of with the mother. Like already suggested pay for child support.

According to h..p://travel.state.gov/family/abduction/country/country_528.html parental adduction is not a crime here:

GENERAL INFORMATION: Parental Kidnapping is not a crime in Thailand and Thai authorities will not issue a warrant or become involved should one parent take a child without the other parent's authorization. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be invoked if a child is taken from the United States to Thailand, or vice versa, by one parent against the wishes of the other parent or in violation of a U.S. custody order.

But I agree with all other posters - make an amicable agreement, including support for the mother/air tickets for the mother to see her son in the US (if she agrees to let him go), or pay the mother a decent monthly sum to take care of your boy and help her family.

You say your concern is your son's future: Choosing the last mentioned option you can even do something good: For small greenbacks your son will have a mother, family and friends (her sisters children) who will have a better future.

When he is at school age or later, he might want to use his US citicienship to go to stay with you and study and work there, therebye helping his mother and her family.

[venturalaw]

A man alone, travelling with a very young child is up for a closer inspection.

Parental abduction is an offence.

You wife was from the same village , with the extreme poverty, yet she was good enough to become your wife, and to have a child with her!

You don't want to play tug of war, no shit..., what are you planning now... Abduction.

You have the arrogance to decide just by yourself what would "be good" for the child.

IMHO a child is always better of with the mother. Like already suggested pay for child support.

Child custodial laws in the US are gender neutral. There is a reason for that. Sometimes living with one parent over the other is clearly in the best interests of the minor child. This can be either the mother, or the father. It is nothing short of complete ignorance to believe that one sex is superior to another regarding child custody.

To answer your question regarding which passport to use, when leaving Thailand use the child's Thai passport, upon entering the US use the child's US passport. Residency for the minor child upon entering the US is established pursuant to the UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act). All 50 states have adopted the UCCJEA. Once the minor child has resided for six months within a state, that state becomes the child's home state.

If you wish more detailed information PM me.

[Bob102]

Thanks for all of the great advice. I am mainly concerned with the legalities involved. I can deal with any moral issues personally. The US State Department as philo points out explains on their website that neither the US or Thai authorities get involved in child custody disputes. This is reassuring enough. I was just concerned how the situation would actually play out as there tend to be a lot of gray areas regarding Thai laws. When I am processing through immigration at the Thai airport I don't want to be hassled if I were to use his US passport as their is no entry stamp or vice versa. Thanks for clearing this up venturalaw.

I disagree with the other BS regarding family values being better in Thailand or that a child is better off with the mother. These are all relative opinions. I want to take full responsibility for my son rather pay child support which would most likely not even go towards helping my son. Why should I pay my wife's dirt poor family to take care of my son when I am both willing and able to provide for him myself? If I thought his mother was responsible, financially able and level headed enough to provide a more decent life for him than myself, I would indeed consider paying child support to her. However this is not the case.

[Mario2008]

I hope that you will make sure that mother and child will stay in contact with each other.

As for leaving on the US passport without an entry stamp, just make sure you have the childs birthcertificate with you. That will explain why there is no entry stamp.

[philo]

I have a question regarding the legal citizenship status of my one year old son. I am an American citizen and my wife is Thai. My son was born in Thailand and has both Thai and American passports and birth certificates. He even has a US social security number. I am considering the possibility of taking my son to the US against his mother's wishes and without her authorization (without her knowledge either). Without going into great detail I feel she is an unfit mother and lacks the financial resources to raise him properly. I do not understand the legalities of parental custody rights in Thailand and wish to avoid becoming involved with the Thai courts over this.

Can I interpret the statement on the US Department of State website that,"the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be invoked if a child is taken from the United States to Thailand, or vice versa" to mean that it is in fact possible to bring him to the US with any legal hassles.

Would I be in violation of either American or Thai laws should I decide to return to the US with my son? Furthermore, which passport should I use when processing him through immigration?

If you decide to leave - it is common (some friends of mine has done it - and there are numerous threads on this subject) to take the child out on the Thai passport and BC, and some crocodile tears that his mother has abandoned the child. When the plane lands the boy enters on the US passport. But then you have 20 years of hard work in front of you.

I have had the same thoughts myself, but I will think twice before taking my children (2) back to Europe without their mother.

[scorecard]

I have a question regarding the legal citizenship status of my one year old son. I am an American citizen and my wife is Thai. My son was born in Thailand and has both Thai and American passports and birth certificates. He even has a US social security number. I am considering the possibility of taking my son to the US against his mother's wishes and without her authorization (without her knowledge either). Without going into great detail I feel she is an unfit mother and lacks the financial resources to raise him properly. I do not understand the legalities of parental custody rights in Thailand and wish to avoid becoming involved with the Thai courts over this.

Can I interpret the statement on the US Department of State website that,"the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cannot be invoked if a child is taken from the United States to Thailand, or vice versa" to mean that it is in fact possible to bring him to the US with any legal hassles.

Would I be in violation of either American or Thai laws should I decide to return to the US with my son? Furthermore, which passport should I use when processing him through immigration?

If you decide to leave - it is common (some friends of mine has done it - and there are numerous threads on this subject) to take the child out on the Thai passport and BC, and some crocodile tears that his mother has abandoned the child. When the plane lands the boy enters on the US passport. But then you have 20 years of hard work in front of you.

I have had the same thoughts myself, but I will think twice before taking my children (2) back to Europe without their mother.

Jumping forward, if you do take your son to the US, please ensure that he learns to read, write and speak Thai, and start as soon as possible.

[mizzi39]

" a child is always better of with the mother."

bullshit ! There are many circumstances where it is better to stay with the father. And -sorry- that´s not just my thinking, it´s how professionals think about it !

second: My advice: speak with a good lawyer, experienced in this kind of ..., before just taking your child to your home country. For example, if you have to fight over custody, the court may see your decision to bring your baby outside the country without knowledge of the mother as a prove, that you are not the best one to care for your child ...

By thai law, you do not have to pay for the mother after divorce. Only for the child. So if the mother would go to Bangkok to work and leave the child to stay with the grandparents, it may be better, the child stay with his father.

But what do I know. I have no information about father or mother. In most cases (this seem to be one of these), in case of divorce, the parents are not able to communicate in a good way, in a way that would be ok for the child. The child in many cases,is just a kind of weapon to fight against each other.

But what is quite clear: If the parents can not find a solution, they both agree, it will always hurt the child. It is always bad for the child, if one parents does not agree. It is a good idea, to get some professional outside help, someone, who tries to help parents to communicate with each other. Do it for your child !

Totally agree here. There is no proof that a child is better off with mom, especially if mom is a whack job! Professional help may do you all some good. Good luck!

[Boo]

I don't recall anyone saying the mum is a whack job & tbh unless her side of the story is able to be told then the op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy. We don't know so lets stick to the question in the op & not speculate on the mothers mental state or abilities.

Whether the op manages to get through immigration without the mothers consent is hard to say, some do & some don't. But something for the op to bear in mind, if you do get stopped & questioned then you will likely find yourself in a heap of trouble & your chances of getting your son through the courts will likely be reduced considerably.

[venturalaw]

I don't recall anyone saying the mum is a whack job & tbh unless her side of the story is able to be told then the op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy. We don't know so lets stick to the question in the op & not speculate on the mothers mental state or abilities.

Whether the op manages to get through immigration without the mothers consent is hard to say, some do & some don't. But something for the op to bear in mind, if you do get stopped & questioned then you will likely find yourself in a heap of trouble & your chances of getting your son through the courts will likely be reduced considerably.

"op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy"

Who is speculating here?

I agree - there should be NO speculation.

[Boo]

Did you bother to read the whole sentance?

I don't recall anyone saying the mum is a whack job & tbh unless her side of the story is able to be told then the op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy

As we only have one side of the story here then it is prudent to bear that in mind & that the mothers side may be a totally different one.

[venturalaw]

Did you bother to read the whole sentance?

I don't recall anyone saying the mum is a whack job & tbh unless her side of the story is able to be told then the op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy

As we only have one side of the story here then it is prudent to bear that in mind & that the mothers side may be a totally different one.

Preceding the speculative clause, to wit: "then the op maybe fabricating to gain sympathy", with the condition "unless her side of the story is able to be told", does not void the speculative nature of the subject statement.

Edited September 1, 2009 by venturalaw

[Boo]

do you have anyting useful to add to the topic?

[venturalaw]

do you have anyting useful to add to the topic?

I have responded to the OP's questions without being speculative. Additionally, I had hoped that pointing out your error would perhaps have been useful to you.

[sbk]

I fail to grasp how stating that we only have the OP's side of the story is speculative. Indeed, until his ex comes on to post then it is true that all we know is what he says.

Regardless of that, it seems to me that it is in the child's best interest to try and work out an amicable arrangement for all concerned with both parents taking part in the decision. Since it does appear to be the child's interest that we all have in mind here.