Adultery

[binnsy]

What legal options does a farang have if he has caught his Thai wife playing about?

Does this affect his divorce if he goes down that route?

[MikeyIdea]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

Edited February 25, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[Mario2008]

As above, it is grounds for divorce. The law now also has the possibility to ask damages from the person your spouse commits adultery with.

If you want out of the marriage, use the adultery to convince her to go to the amphur with you and get a divorce in 30 minutes. Just need to bring both wedding certificates and two witnesses.

If property/assets are involved it is wise to see a lawyer first.

Use the adultery as a way of leverage, she will probably want to avoid the scandal such divorce will cause.

[venturalaw]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

According to the law - perhaps. But in reality, no. A person who is seeking to violate the trust of their spouse/family unit is not trustworthy. A person who is untrustworthy is lacking the type of character that is ideal for raising children.

[Senia]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

According to the law - perhaps. But in reality, no. A person who is seeking to violate the trust of their spouse/family unit is not trustworthy. A person who is untrustworthy is lacking the type of character that is ideal for raising children.

i disagree, an adulterer can still even be a a good parent. Even better than the parent who is faithful to her spouse. How you treat your spouse and how you treat your kids are not the same.

I know this from personal experience

[venturalaw]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

According to the law - perhaps. But in reality, no. A person who is seeking to violate the trust of their spouse/family unit is not trustworthy. A person who is untrustworthy is lacking the type of character that is ideal for raising children.

i disagree, an adulterer can still even be a a good parent. Even better than the parent who is faithful to her spouse. How you treat your spouse and how you treat your kids are not the same.

I know this from personal experience

I stand by what I said. If the children become aware of the violation of trust that has been perpetrated the adulterer parent, clearly the adulterer is not an 'ideal' person to teach his/her children values, such as trust. However, if perhaps if the other parent who was faithful is, for instance, a child abuser, then clearly the adulterer would be the better choice to raise the children.

[Totster]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

According to the law - perhaps. But in reality, no. A person who is seeking to violate the trust of their spouse/family unit is not trustworthy. A person who is untrustworthy is lacking the type of character that is ideal for raising children.

i disagree, an adulterer can still even be a a good parent. Even better than the parent who is faithful to her spouse. How you treat your spouse and how you treat your kids are not the same.

I know this from personal experience

I stand by what I said. If the children become aware of the violation of trust that has been perpetrated the adulterer parent, clearly the adulterer is not an 'ideal' person to teach his/her children values, such as trust. However, if perhaps if the other parent who was faithful is, for instance, a child abuser, then clearly the adulterer would be the better choice to raise the children.

There are many reasons that someone chooses to be an adulterer, not just because they are untrustworthy etc.. and although wrong, one must not judge without knowing the facts.

Totster

[Wallaby]

Adultery is a valid reason for requesting a divorce in the first place that's all. It does not affect the outcome of the actual divorce

Assets are still shared or not shared using the same rules, adultery as such does not make a mother or a father a more or less suitable parent so it doesn't affect custody and possession of any children

According to the law - perhaps. But in reality, no. A person who is seeking to violate the trust of their spouse/family unit is not trustworthy. A person who is untrustworthy is lacking the type of character that is ideal for raising children.

i disagree, an adulterer can still even be a a good parent. Even better than the parent who is faithful to her spouse. How you treat your spouse and how you treat your kids are not the same.

I know this from personal experience

I stand by what I said. If the children become aware of the violation of trust that has been perpetrated the adulterer parent, clearly the adulterer is not an 'ideal' person to teach his/her children values, such as trust. However, if perhaps if the other parent who was faithful is, for instance, a child abuser, then clearly the adulterer would be the better choice to raise the children.

Agree, it's a credibility issue. Hence why a lot of western women in my country us the domestic violence angle to get what they want. No I'm not divorced, never married and no kids. I've just seen it far too often.

[sbk]

As my dad says, you never know whats going on in another man's head or another man's bed.

[Wallaby]

As my dad says, you never know whats going on in another man's head or another man's bed.

Or in another women's head or in her bank balance.

When you see that in a domestic violence charge ( in my country) the woman only has to accuse the guy and he's gone. He can't bring any evidence against her previous unsubstantiated complaints that the police have found her to be lying, he can't bring up her previous convictions. A judge will err on the side of caution and allow it nearly every time.

I've been in court instructing barristers on these things far too many times to think there is a level playing field. It simply isn't the case.

Of course the same thing goes for the man to accuse the woman, but that sort of application is a rarity, not the norm.

[sbk]

Excuse me? this is about adultery????

[Boo]

of course not sbk, it's about having a soap box

[MikeyIdea]

I agree with VenturaLaw that if the child finds out about the adultery, then that is clearly bad for the child - in terms of trust as well as the parent committing it teaching the child bad behaviour

Whatever the other parent has done does not make the parent committing adultery less bad (specific to the adultery issue and the learnings from it), the other parent can overall still be even worse of course, or better. The judge will not put any weight on the adultery as such in deciding custody and possession. Difficult to prove direct impact on the child. It could be used indirectly perhaps, not there for the child, neglecting the child etc.

The judges' job is to take a long term decision in the best interest of the child - either of the parents above can be good choices

Edited March 7, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[surayu]

convince her to go to the amphur with you and get a divorce in 30 minutes. Just need to bring both wedding certificates and two witnesses.

If property/assets are involved it is wise to see a lawyer first.

But i heard that this "30 minutes" divorce it's of no value in the western world, so, just in case someone want to get remarried quickly, for your government you are still married, untill you get some more valuable pieces of paper from the court, and even if you just want to remarry inside of Thailand, Thailand will still ask you for documents from your embassy which declares you are free to marry, your thai partner however is going to be fine with just the amphur thingies

[gregb]

convince her to go to the amphur with you and get a divorce in 30 minutes. Just need to bring both wedding certificates and two witnesses.

If property/assets are involved it is wise to see a lawyer first.

But i heard that this "30 minutes" divorce it's of no value in the western world, so, just in case someone want to get remarried quickly, for your government you are still married, untill you get some more valuable pieces of paper from the court, and even if you just want to remarry inside of Thailand, Thailand will still ask you for documents from your embassy which declares you are free to marry, your thai partner however is going to be fine with just the amphur thingies

A Thai divorce is fully recognized in the West, just as a Thai marriage is fully recognized in the West. Yes, you do still need a letter from your embassy in the event you want to remarry. The Thai government has no way of knowing that you didn't marry a foreign bride in the meantime.

[MikeyIdea]

convince her to go to the amphur with you and get a divorce in 30 minutes. Just need to bring both wedding certificates and two witnesses.

If property/assets are involved it is wise to see a lawyer first.

But i heard that this "30 minutes" divorce it's of no value in the western world, so, just in case someone want to get remarried quickly, for your government you are still married, untill you get some more valuable pieces of paper from the court, and even if you just want to remarry inside of Thailand, Thailand will still ask you for documents from your embassy which declares you are free to marry, your thai partner however is going to be fine with just the amphur thingies

According to Thai law, those 30 minutes are enough to be legally divorced. If foreign countries have other rules then that's not much a Thai family court can do about that. If someone first divorce at amphur then go to court to request evidence of divorce from a Thai family court, then the court will most likely not accept to take that request up. Why should they waste Thai tax money on something like that? The path is to have the divorce certificate translated then go to ministry of foregn affairs department of consular affairs and get the translation certified

Edited March 7, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[surayu]

A Thai divorce is fully recognized in the West, just as a Thai marriage is fully recognized in the West.

I still remember another thread in which this particular was well discussed and the conclusion to it was that the "quick" divorce at the amphur have no legal value outside of Thailand, in another country they will require to see something from a thai court and not a thai amphur.

I would be glad to hear things are changed or the people on that thread were wrong, as it can only bring some well deserved right for the expats.....

[MikeyIdea]

A Thai divorce is fully recognized in the West, just as a Thai marriage is fully recognized in the West.

I still remember another thread in which this particular was well discussed and the conclusion to it was that the "quick" divorce at the amphur have no legal value outside of Thailand, in another country they will require to see something from a thai court and not a thai amphur.

I would be glad to hear things are changed or the people on that thread were wrong, as it can only bring some well deserved right for the expats.....

What you are discussing is probably a procedure problem. The amphur divorce IS legally recognised, full stop. The problem should lie with how the divorce certificate is presented. As with all legal documents in a foreign language, they should be translated and then formally certified as a true translation by Ministry of Foreign affairs Department of Consular Affairs before used. It would be a rather thick embassy official not to accept that. An embassy should reject a non-formally certified translation of a divorce certificate, correct I think

Edited March 7, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[surayu]

I am still looking for that thread, so far i have been able to find some other interesting point from a link on a different thread:

Source: http://www.thailawonline.com/en/family/divorce-in-thailand/how-to-divorce.html

Recognition of a Thai divorce abroadThe laws in every country are different and they change frequently. You should verify if a Thai divorce is recognised in your country with your embassy or a foreign lawyer from your own country.

UK: We found a website at http://thaiwomensorganisation.com/ talking about this aspect of Thai divorce and British recognition of it. One of the articles is in .pdf, is related to "family law" between Thai and UK citizen. It says that:

"If the parties are granted the divorce by Thai court and one of party had

Thai national or reside in Thailand, UK law will recognize it. But if the

parties have a divorce by consenting and register it at district office,

UK law might not recognize it if one of party resides in UK within 12

months before divorce"

[Mario2008]

In this kind of cases I suspect an important part is where you were living during the past period, that determines which countries laws should be applied.

The ratio is to prevent people going on a holiday or have temporary residence in a country with very liberal divorce laws and in this way circumvent the law of their own country, especially when one of the spouses is left in the cold by this it will not be accepted or the divorce settlement (who gets what) will not be accepted.

Basically, living in the UK and going on a holiday to Thailand and get divorced their to prevent paying alimony is not going to work. An ex-spouse could still claim that in the UK.

[gregb]

I am still looking for that thread, so far i have been able to find some other interesting point from a link on a different thread:

Source: http://www.thailawonline.com/en/family/divorce-in-thailand/how-to-divorce.html

Recognition of a Thai divorce abroadThe laws in every country are different and they change frequently. You should verify if a Thai divorce is recognised in your country with your embassy or a foreign lawyer from your own country.

UK: We found a website at http://thaiwomensorganisation.com/ talking about this aspect of Thai divorce and British recognition of it. One of the articles is in .pdf, is related to "family law" between Thai and UK citizen. It says that:

"If the parties are granted the divorce by Thai court and one of party had

Thai national or reside in Thailand, UK law will recognize it. But if the

parties have a divorce by consenting and register it at district office,

UK law might not recognize it if one of party resides in UK within 12

months before divorce"

This is a very specific issue, and it comes up because of a jurisdictional issue when the parties have been living in the UK within the last year. In this case, an ampur divorce *IS* still valid as long as both parties want it to be. In other words, if neither party contests the divorce, you are still divorced. It isn't as though it has no value. It is simply not the end of the story.

What is being said is that in this very specific instance, the UK claims jurisdiction for the divorce. And under the laws in the UK, the divorce can be nullified if the parties did not receive proper council as is provided for under UK law. Similarly, a prenuptial agreement can be nullified if both parties did not receive independent council before signing the agreement. There are lots of little gotcha's like this that you need to watch out for. That is why it is always important to establish who has jurisdiction in any divorce before proceeding. In some cases, where there is overlapping jurisdiction, you have to comply with the rules of both countries if you want to be completely secure. This is the event you have raised above. Overlapping jurisdiction.

The Thai ampur divorce is still a valid divorce, but the parties also have rights in the UK which exist independent of the divorce action in Thailand due to the jurisdiction issue. If either party did not receive council, and they subsequently elect to contest the Thai divorce in the UK, the UK will require a new divorce action compatible with UK law. In the event that the Thai divorce went through the courts, then the requirement for council is met, and under these circumstances there is no basis to contest.