Leaving Thailand With Son/ The Alternative Approach

Bob102 · February 3, 2010

I posted last year about leaving Thailand with my son and without my wife's permission and have read other posts with similar situations. I also made contact with a Thai attorney who advised me not to go through the Thai legal system but there's an 'alternative approach' that avoids the court system. Does anyone know of any other Bangkok attorneys I can get a second opinion from?

From what I understand, the US and Thailand have not signed the Hague Convention so child custody disputes are not enforceable. I have heard other foreigners mention getting stopped in the airport by immigration in both Thailand and their home countries and questioned about the mother. From what I understand, they may request to speak with the mother, written consent, or the birth certificate. My son has my last name, my name on the birth certificate, and both Thai and US passports and birth certificates. This should be sufficient, right?

Traveling under these circumstances is going to be extremely nerve-wrecking so any suggestions or words of wisdom would be appreciated.

Mario2008 · February 4, 2010

Both Thailand and the US didn't sign the Hague convention. That is not to say that an international waarent for your arrest couldn't be issued, once the court in Thailand would give sole custody to the mother. You would be save in the US, but not outside the US. Nor would it prevent a court battle in the US.

Slaps · February 4, 2010

Wish you luck mate but sorry I can't offer you any advice.

Why no advice or help here??

edgarfriendly · February 4, 2010

Good luck with that.. at least u got the passports and your in contact with him.

ef

tonititan · February 4, 2010

I don't know if I read your other post. Is there a good reason why you need to take the kids away from their mother?

MikeyIdea · February 4, 2010

I suppose you have read this article http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Internationa...es-t222371.html

I've read all your posts and you have given this some thought you write. It is not clear if you registered the marriage with your wife or not. You provide very little information about what you base your decision on actually. You use the word unfit, responsibility and unstable temper but don't really specify details enough, you write about financial resources and education and the phrase "better life" and "level headed enough to provide a more decent life for him than myself" which makes me suspicious.

The money, education and "better life" bit is totally inadequate of course. Don't get me wrong, there are of course reasons that are good enough, just: What are they? Alcoholism? Gambling? Partying? Hot-temperedness? Unpredictable temper toward the child too? Not caring about seeing the child? Not caring about raising the child? Or is it not able to care for the child?

You write that you can deal with the moral issue but may I ask you what makes you think you have the right to deprive the child of the right to see her own mother and the mother of the right to see her own child?

A couple of more questions for you.

You wrote in your previous thread: I do not understand the legalities of parental custody rights in Thailand and wish to avoid becoming involved with the Thai courts over this.

Why don't you? I do.

Don't be afraid of Juvenile court in Thailand, they really do take the childs best interest into consideration without being biased neither against fathers nor foreigners.

You wrote in your previous thread: I have weighed the consequences of this for both sides.

What makes you think you have the right to weigh consequences for another person? What was the mothers reaction and opinion to what you came up with?

I don't know if you have legitimized your child or not, you are not the one using the word divorce, others are. If you were not legally married to the mother, then you most likely did not legitimate your child. You should know that if you only have your name on the BC as father and nothing else, then taking the child from the mother is indeed kidnapping. Taking the child out of the country is indeed child trafficking, that's what it is called when someone illegally takes a child out of a country.

May I point out that kidnapping is a serious offence… That gives jail time in every country of the world. It is first when you are the legal father of the child that this becomes a custody case, any time before that, it's kidnapping. It is true that Thai authorities won't act on a custody dispute of course but who says that they won't act on kidnapping? International warrant for your arrest could be issued, not only Thailand any longer. You could argue in a US court that you are the legal father, hence no kidnapping, and you would win of course but what about you or your son travelling to other countries the next 10 years?

The US and Thailand have not signed the Hague Convention so child custody disputes are not enforceable… True, just be aware of that if the mother meets someone who can use a computer, then getting in contact with an American lawyer who works on commission is only a few key strokes away

All assuming that you indeed did not legitimate your relationship with your child and that the mother, as you write, "has no financial means to fight for custody or consult with an attorney" and it stays that way. A few tears to her new western boyfriend and he would be on fire to help maybe.

Bob, not able to raise the child, not able to provide good education for the child are not reasons good enough to deprive the child of her mother and certainly not enough for kidnapping and child trafficking. I have read your posts carefully, and I don't like the words you use. There is an aura of superiority thinking in them that I don't approve with. Maybe it has become like that only because you leave out so many details, maybe it's un-intentional, but then again, maybe it's unconscious.

There can be good enough reasons to do what you think of doing, give me the reasons Bob, I think about the childs best

Edited February 4, 2010 by MikeyIdea

gregb · February 7, 2010

Forgive me for being behind the curve here, but I'm not understanding the problem.

Every single person I've ever known who has applied for a US passport at the US embassy in Thailand for the child has been required to submit a signed letter from the mother that acknowledges the father can take the child to the US at any time and that she recognizes she has absolutely no recourse. In fact I think it is even required she appear at the embassy in person to submit that letter.

Didn't your wife have to sign this letter when you got your child's passport from the US embassy? I'm curious because I've never heard of anyone getting a US passport where this consent from the mother was not given.

As I understand it, as long as you get stamped out by Thai immigration, you have nothing to be concerned about at all. Thailand can stop you from exiting if the wife finds out about it and files a report with the police before you leave the country, but once that plane is in the air your wife would need to physically go to the US and fight in a US court using US laws.

You haven't done anything wrong in the eyes of the US. That is why they require that letter in the first place. Ask the US embassy if you have a concern in this area. I would be very curious to hear from someone if they believe my interpretation is incorrect.

Edited February 7, 2010 by gregb

MikeyIdea · February 8, 2010

There are 2 scenarios that are possible; OP is father and OP is not father – according to law.

Let's start with OP is not father – according to law

That a court in the US recognizes the person registered as father on the birth certificate is doesn't mean that Thailand does it or that other countries do. According to Thai law, if the OP brings the child out of Thailand, then it's kidnapping and child trafficking. A Thai court has no problems what-so ever, of course, to issue an arrest warrant and to make it an international one.

It is up to the immigration officers in each country to act and bring in the police or not but I would be very surprised if immigration at Heathrow airport gets an alert on their computer that the person travelling is wanted in Thailand for kidnapping and child trafficking and they just accept that the person in question shows and American Birth certificate showing the child to be born in Thailand, an American passport and a translated copy of a Thai birth certificate notarised by an American embassy as evidence that the person is not guilty and let him go. Who believes that is going to happen? Reading through the above, it is ridiculously clear. Any immigration in the world will of course arrest the person on the spot. Why? Because regardless of if the OP wins in America or not (which he of course will) the international arrest warrant doesn't get revoked. The OP has still committed kidnapping and child trafficking in Thailand and the international arrest warrant that Thai authorities have issued stands of course.

Now let's take OP is father – according to law

Exactly the same as above except for the following; Parental kidnapping doesn't exist so when the father takes the child away and disallow the child the possibility to see his mother then mother takes the case to Juvenile court which, if the father does not show up to defend his action, of course, will grant the mother sole custody. It becomes kidnapping if the father does not return the child to the mother and a Thai court has no problems what-so ever, of course, to issue an arrest warrant and to make it an international one. There will be no child trafficking charge as the OP at the time he left the country indeed had custody. The rest is simply a copy and paste of the case above where OP is not father – according to law

As I understand it, as long as you get stamped out by Thai immigration, you have nothing to be concerned about at all. Thailand can stop you from exiting if the wife finds out about it and files a report with the police before you leave the country, but once that plane is in the air your wife would need to physically go to the US and fight in a US court using US laws

Not correct gregb. That only applies as long as the OP is in America. It is kidnapping and possibly also child trafficking anywhere else in the world. Depending on what happens in Thailand after he leaves of course

The OP writes in a previous thread; "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". And the OP also writes; She has no financial means to fight for custody or consult with an attorney.

But then, since the OP writes that the mother has not financial means to even consult with an attorney, maybe the action he is writing about is justified.

I still ask the OP for more information as to why he finds it justified to deprive the child of the right to see his own mother. I think there are circumstances that I can accept, if I only could hear them, but he doesn't come forward it seems

Edited February 8, 2010 by MikeyIdea

bina · February 8, 2010

correct me if im wrong, but the paper that is signed (with a notarian) for a US passport is NOT permission to leave the country, but permission to get a passport from that nationality. my daughter is still underage (under 16) and i need her father's id card and that piece of paper signed and notarized by him that he allows my daughter to renew her passport OR he has to accompany me to the consulate in tel aviv (the first option costs money, the second costs psychological stress), and that he is indeed the father. there is a separate order for not allowing a child to leave the country, here it is provided by a lawyer, and listed in the ministery of immmigration or of foreign affairs (not sure which actually since i havent done this , although i have friends that did that to her kids, so the father wouldnt take them out of country)... supposedly at the airport etc the children's id numbers/passports are listed ...

thererfor we are waitng two more months for daughter to be 16 where she doesnt need parental permissioni to re new her US passport. this is US rules for here in israel. is it possible the US has separate rulings per country???

bina

israel

forgot to clarify i am the american citizen he is not.

gregb · February 8, 2010

It is up to the immigration officers in each country to act and bring in the police or not but I would be very surprised if immigration at Heathrow airport gets an alert on their computer that the person travelling is wanted in Thailand for kidnapping and child trafficking and they just accept that the person in question shows and American Birth certificate showing the child to be born in Thailand, an American passport and a translated copy of a Thai birth certificate notarised by an American embassy as evidence that the person is not guilty and let him go.

I would have to agree there. In fact, I don't think it would be within an immigration officer's prerogative to do this. He would be forced to take them in custody, and an extradition hearing would take place in front of a judge. At that point, the OP would be allowed to present his case that the trafficking order is invalid because it was the mother trying to keep him, the legal father, from access to his child. Because by US law, he is the father. Now it would be up to each individual country to decide between US law and Thai law, and which one was more important and the relative merits of each persons case. Messy for sure, but not a slam dunk case that the OP would be found guilty or that the child would be removed from his custody. Extradition treaties are only valid when there is an equivalent law which has been violated in each country. If the receiving country would not have found the OP guilty of trafficking based on the evidence he presents, then he would not be extradited.

What you are pointing out though is that there are risks if the OP wants to travel internationally after doing this. I would suspect in this case he would have to consult an attorney in the states which would help him establish a list of go/no go countries where he would likely have problems vs. not having problems. This is just something he would have to live with as a consequence of his actions.

I'm not saying the OP is correct or not. The best situation for the child is clearly if the 2 of them would work out a custody arrangement that was in the best interests of the child. I recognize that when one or both parents are not reasonable, this may simply not be possible. I haven't been following this case long enough to form an emotional judgement either way. I can certainly see the argument from both sides. I am simply trying to think through the consequences if the OP goes ahead and does this.

I still ask the OP for more information as to why he finds it justified to deprive the child of the right to see his own mother. I think there are circumstances that I can accept, if I only could hear them, but he doesn't come forward it seems

That is really the crux of the matter, and it is not something the OP should take lightly just because he has a personal dislike for the woman. Like her or hate her, he obviously liked her well enough at one point to father a child with her, and she is that child's mother. Sure the OP can lie to the child when he is small and poison his mind against her, but someday the child will grow up, and is the OP sure his arguments will hold sway then?

What will the child think about the OP when he/she is old enough to find his mother and evaluate the OP's actions based on the real merits of the case? The OP may be able to live with the moral ramifications of his actions today, but will he be able to live with the child's reaction in 20 years when the child finds out what happened from the mother's point of view?

correct me if im wrong, but the paper that is signed (with a notarian) for a US passport is NOT permission to leave the country, but permission to get a passport from that nationality.

You are correct, however part of the wording of all the letters I have seen include the statement that the mother recognizes that granting a passport means the child can be taken from the country. So it is a distinction without a real distinction. One implies the other. And at least in Thailand the consequences of that letter are explained to the mother when she signs it. There isn't really any room for doubt.

MikeyIdea · February 10, 2010

I found this issue so interesting that I quickly called and asked my lawyer about the kidnapping and child trafficking and indeed, he confirms that the cases above are all correct interpretations of the law

1) Not legal father takes child out of country

Confirm – Both kidnapping and child trafficking charges possible

2) Legal father take child out of country without mothers consent

Confirm – Neither kidnapping nor child trafficking charges possible (yet)

3) Legal father take child out of the country without mothers consent, mother then sue for sole custody

Confirm – Mother will eventually be granted sole custody if father does not show up (with child) to defend his rights

Confirm – If child is not returned to mother granted sole custody when she requires so, then mother can indeed sue for kidnapping

I also asked about international arrest warrant and got very clear answers:

Request must be initiated either by plaintiff or the prosecutor

Custody: Never for custody cases

Kidnapping: Of course

Child Trafficking: Of course

Travelling is going to be impossible if an international arrest warrant is issued. It doesn't matter if extradition treaties exist or not. It doesn't matter if the abductor eventually is freed, the problem is that the abductor will be taken into custody

All this said: Someone must do something for something to happen, nothing will happen automatically

Edited February 10, 2010 by MikeyIdea

mizzi39 · February 14, 2010

Forgive me for being behind the curve here, but I'm not understanding the problem.
Every single person I've ever known who has applied for a US passport at the US embassy in Thailand for the child has been required to submit a signed letter from the mother that acknowledges the father can take the child to the US at any time and that she recognizes she has absolutely no recourse. In fact I think it is even required she appear at the embassy in person to submit that letter.

Didn't your wife have to sign this letter when you got your child's passport from the US embassy? I'm curious because I've never heard of anyone getting a US passport where this consent from the mother was not given.

As I understand it, as long as you get stamped out by Thai immigration, you have nothing to be concerned about at all. Thailand can stop you from exiting if the wife finds out about it and files a report with the police before you leave the country, but once that plane is in the air your wife would need to physically go to the US and fight in a US court using US laws.

You haven't done anything wrong in the eyes of the US. That is why they require that letter in the first place. Ask the US embassy if you have a concern in this area. I would be very curious to hear from someone if they believe my interpretation is incorrect.

My wife didn't sign any letter when we got our son's US passport from the embassy. Yes, she had to be present along with me and our son, but no letter was even signed

My wife's name is also on his US consular birth abroad certificate which shows her as his legal mom, so the embassy has a record of this.

anon345535 · February 14, 2010

you'll be very lucky to get past immigration without the mother consent. what happens when you're back at your own country i have no idea. i was told by a reliable source a custody battle in your homeland is very probable and in this case the father would likely lose unless there are other circumstances involved.

it is possible to get over the border "officially" if you know what i mean

nakachalet · February 14, 2010

thx much for your educational post.

it is most informative and

should become a must read for all farangs coming to live or stay a while in thailand.

it makes readers think from the female perspectives as well.... thanks again, mikeyidea, so much.

I suppose you have read this article http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Internationa...es-t222371.html
I've read all your posts and you have given this some thought you write. It is not clear if you registered the marriage with your wife or not. You provide very little information about what you base your decision on actually. You use the word unfit, responsibility and unstable temper but don't really specify details enough, you write about financial resources and education and the phrase "better life" and "level headed enough to provide a more decent life for him than myself" which makes me suspicious.

The money, education and "better life" bit is totally inadequate of course. Don't get me wrong, there are of course reasons that are good enough, just: What are they? Alcoholism? Gambling? Partying? Hot-temperedness? Unpredictable temper toward the child too? Not caring about seeing the child? Not caring about raising the child? Or is it not able to care for the child?

You write that you can deal with the moral issue but may I ask you what makes you think you have the right to deprive the child of the right to see her own mother and the mother of the right to see her own child?

A couple of more questions for you.

You wrote in your previous thread: I do not understand the legalities of parental custody rights in Thailand and wish to avoid becoming involved with the Thai courts over this.

Why don't you? I do.

Don't be afraid of Juvenile court in Thailand, they really do take the childs best interest into consideration without being biased neither against fathers nor foreigners.

You wrote in your previous thread: I have weighed the consequences of this for both sides.

What makes you think you have the right to weigh consequences for another person? What was the mothers reaction and opinion to what you came up with?

I don't know if you have legitimized your child or not, you are not the one using the word divorce, others are. If you were not legally married to the mother, then you most likely did not legitimate your child. You should know that if you only have your name on the BC as father and nothing else, then taking the child from the mother is indeed kidnapping. Taking the child out of the country is indeed child trafficking, that's what it is called when someone illegally takes a child out of a country.

May I point out that kidnapping is a serious offence… That gives jail time in every country of the world. It is first when you are the legal father of the child that this becomes a custody case, any time before that, it's kidnapping. It is true that Thai authorities won't act on a custody dispute of course but who says that they won't act on kidnapping? International warrant for your arrest could be issued, not only Thailand any longer. You could argue in a US court that you are the legal father, hence no kidnapping, and you would win of course but what about you or your son travelling to other countries the next 10 years?

The US and Thailand have not signed the Hague Convention so child custody disputes are not enforceable… True, just be aware of that if the mother meets someone who can use a computer, then getting in contact with an American lawyer who works on commission is only a few key strokes away

All assuming that you indeed did not legitimate your relationship with your child and that the mother, as you write, "has no financial means to fight for custody or consult with an attorney" and it stays that way. A few tears to her new western boyfriend and he would be on fire to help maybe.

Bob, not able to raise the child, not able to provide good education for the child are not reasons good enough to deprive the child of her mother and certainly not enough for kidnapping and child trafficking. I have read your posts carefully, and I don't like the words you use. There is an aura of superiority thinking in them that I don't approve with. Maybe it has become like that only because you leave out so many details, maybe it's un-intentional, but then again, maybe it's unconscious.

There can be good enough reasons to do what you think of doing, give me the reasons Bob, I think about the childs best

mpetersen · February 14, 2010

Of course you need permission (morally, technically, and legally) for you to leave the country with your child. Sort things out, or get a court-ordered sole custody agreement. Paying support is for your son, not your in-laws. If paying support for your son entails keeping a roof over your in-law's heads then so be it. Child support is never paid directly to the child, but always paid through the mother/guardian.

Don't be a dick (to yourself) and take a kid out with the possibility of ending up in jail for it. A criminal record is going to do nothing for your future or your future ability to travel internationally to see your child.

So, how much support could it possibly be? 5,000 THB? 10,000 THB per month? The best thing you can do is make sure your child grows up knowing that his dad did his best to support his life. He will turn 16 soon enough and make his own decisions then.

MikeyIdea · February 15, 2010

So, how much support could it possibly be? 5,000 THB? 10,000 THB per month? The best thing you can do is make sure your child grows up knowing that his dad did his best to support his life. He will turn 16 soon enough and make his own decisions then.

Actually, it's even less than 5,00 bath per month for smaller children. This thread contains some very interesting and surprising information that is good to know

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Friends-Cust...re-t337923.html

torrenova · February 18, 2010

A lot of crap purporting to be law here as usual. International arrest warrants ? Never. Speculation on that is just that, idle speculation.

The one overriding issue is going to be the habitual residence test. If the child is Thai, over a certain age and has only lived in Thailand, then you are going to end up back in the Thai courts whichever route you take, unless you disappear off radar completely.

You also need to note that courts are not overly disposed to care much about the past, even the present really but are caring about the future. You can bend that whichever way you choose but remember that it applies to all concerned.

MikeyIdea · February 18, 2010

A lot of crap purporting to be law here as usual. International arrest warrants ? Never. Speculation on that is just that, idle speculation.
The one overriding issue is going to be the habitual residence test. If the child is Thai, over a certain age and has only lived in Thailand, then you are going to end up back in the Thai courts whichever route you take, unless you disappear off radar completely.

You also need to note that courts are not overly disposed to care much about the past, even the present really but are caring about the future. You can bend that whichever way you choose but remember that it applies to all concerned.

No one is saying that it will happen, the only thing the post says is that it according to Thai law indeed can happen. Thai people don't normally do things like this, they have been taught to accept and they lack the initiative, it would probably take a westerner to be the driving force behind it all to make it happen, as the post also indicate.

Edited February 18, 2010 by MikeyIdea