Bringing My Girlfriends Child To The Uk

[jeremys8]

Need advice with regards to Thai girlfriends child. It's early days but I plan to bring my thai girlfriend to the UK for a visit and then longer term back here on a spouse visa. My girlfriend has a child of 6 years old and I wish to bring her to the UK also but can find no information with regards to this.

Any help is appreciated.

[Mario2008]

I have moved your topic to the visa for other coutnries section, where the experts on this reside.

[7by7]

Visit visa should be relatively simple, if your girlfriend is issued one then her child will be too. See UK Visit Visa Basics.

Settlement is more complicated.

Firstly; unless you and your girlfriend have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years prior to her applying, she wont qualify for settlement as your unmarried partner. You will either have to marry her in Thailand and she applies as your spouse, or she applies as your fiance and you marry in the UK within 6 months and she then applies in the UK for Further Leave to Remain as your spouse.

The ease, or otherwise, of obtaining settlement for her child depends on who has had responsibility for the child. If s/he has been living with you girlfriend for their entire life, with the father playing no part in the child's upbringing, then it will be relatively straightforward; but if the father plays an active role in the child's upbringing then it will be more difficult; maybe impossible.

See UK Settlement Visa Basics for more details.

[jeremys8]

Thanks for the advice - much appreciated.

My girlfriends daughter does not currently live with her mother but with the grandparents. The child's father passed away some time ago. I think the fact that the child does not live with her mother may cause some issues but maybe bringing them into the uk on a holiday visa first will assist.

[7by7]

Maternal grandparents or paternal?

It will be a lot easier if the maternal grandparents; but whichever she will need to show that she plays an active role in the child's upbringing, taking all the major decisions regarding the child's life. See SET7.8 What is sole responsibility?

If she can't meet the sole responsibility requirement, then that the child has previously visited the UK will have little or no effect, I'm afraid.

[jeremys8]

Yes maternal grandparents are looking after the child and regular payments are being made by my girlfriend with regards to the child's upkeep.

[manxninja]

From what you say Jeremy.

The process will be relativly straight forward ive done the visa for thaikids before.

Dont dothe visa application yourself get a agency to put it in as you will need translation of documents ect.

If you are intending do have the child live with you in UK dont delay the visa costs are going up year on year . Think its over a grand for visa app now alone.

Need any advice ask away.

[manxninja]

7by7 post is on the button btw

[jeremys8]

Thanks for the assistance. All taken on board. It's a daunting task but gonna be worth it

[VisasPlus]

The cost is an important factor. It will be 826 GBP for each applicant ( for settlement visas ). More important is the "sole responsibility" mentioned by 7x7. The fact that the mother supports the child financially is very important, but only one factor in many in a child settlement application.

Manxninja has experience of child settlement applications, but the circumstances of those children when they applied may not be the same as yours. Each persons application will be different, but seek advice before you submit. If you do apply for, and get, visit visas for your wife and her child, then it could help with future a settlement application in evidencing that mother and child spend time together, have regular contact, etc.

[7by7]

May I add that manxninja's user name suggests he is from the Isle of Man.

Whilst visa applications for the Isle of Man are submitted via the British embassy, the decision is taken by Manx government staff, not the UKBA; and although the UK and Manx rules are very similar, there are differences.

[Richard W]

The child's father passed away some time ago.

If she can't meet the sole responsibility requirement, then that the child has previously visited the UK will have little or no effect, I'm afraid.

As the child's father is dead, there is no 'sole responsibility' requirement. The child would be admitted under Rule 297(i)(d), not Rule 297(i)(e).

[7by7]

Good point; but I suspect the ECO will still want to see some evidence that the mother is playing an active role in the child's upbringing; especially as the father has been dead for some time.

But VisasPlus is better placed to comment on that than I.

[VisasPlus]

The child's father passed away some time ago.

If she can't meet the sole responsibility requirement, then that the child has previously visited the UK will have little or no effect, I'm afraid.

As the child's father is dead, there is no 'sole responsibility' requirement. The child would be admitted under Rule 297(i)(d), not Rule 297(i)(e).

Not true. Sole responsibility still applies. Responsibility for the child applicant is not only a matter between parents.

[Richard W]

The child's father passed away some time ago.

If she can't meet the sole responsibility requirement, then that the child has previously visited the UK will have little or no effect, I'm afraid.

As the child's father is dead, there is no 'sole responsibility' requirement. The child would be admitted under Rule 297(i)(d), not Rule 297(i)(e).

Not true. Sole responsibility still applies. Responsibility for the child applicant is not only a matter between parents.

[VisasPlus]

Richard W,

Nothing appeared on your last post

[jeremys8]

So can you recommend a good agency so I can get the ball rolling

[Richard W]

Not true. Sole responsibility still applies. Responsibility for the child applicant is not only a matter between parents.

Sorry! My eye has strayed to the ILE rules. I hadn't noticed the discrepancy between the ILE rules (such as 297) and the rules on entering with a view to settlement, such as Rule 301. Once the mother has ILR, the daughter will be able to enter without regard to 'sole responsibility', so long as the rules don't change in the intervening 5 years.

Has this discrepancy been around long? I don't remember it when I first looked at the rules, but that was a long time ago, and I can't find a copy of the old rules.

[VisasPlus]

Not true. Sole responsibility still applies. Responsibility for the child applicant is not only a matter between parents.

Sorry! My eye has strayed to the ILE rules. I hadn't noticed the discrepancy between the ILE rules (such as 297) and the rules on entering with a view to settlement, such as Rule 301. Once the mother has ILR, the daughter will be able to enter without regard to 'sole responsibility', so long as the rules don't change in the intervening 5 years.

Has this discrepancy been around long? I don't remember it when I first looked at the rules, but that was a long time ago, and I can't find a copy of the old rules.

I still don' t think you are correct. The rules apply to a child joining a parent, or parents, who has limited leave to enter or who is settled. Where are you getting your information from ?

[Richard W]

I still don' t think you are correct. The rules apply to a child joining a parent, or parents, who has limited leave to enter or who is settled. Where are you getting your information from ?

Spacing it out so it will display in its entirety, file policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/part8/children/ at site http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk, http://www.ukba.home...part8/children/ - Rule 297 to be precise. (The initially applicable rule is Rule 301, which is more restrictive.) I'm having difficulty downloading the file at the moment, so you may need several attempts.

It seems a daft distinction, but it may have made sense when the probationary period was one year. It makes less sense with a five year period, because of the poorer educational and social outcomes as the age of arrival increases.

[VisasPlus]

I still don' t think you are correct. The rules apply to a child joining a parent, or parents, who has limited leave to enter or who is settled. Where are you getting your information from ?

Spacing it out so it will display in its entirety, file policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/part8/children/ at site http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk, http://www.ukba.home...part8/children/ - Rule 297 to be precise. (The initially applicable rule is Rule 301, which is more restrictive.) I'm having difficulty downloading the file at the moment, so you may need several attempts.

It seems a daft distinction, but it may have made sense when the probationary period was one year. It makes less sense with a five year period, because of the poorer educational and social outcomes as the age of arrival increases.

I'm not sure that you are talking about the same problem that the OP might have. You seem to be talking about the whether a child will receive Limited Leave to Enter or Indefinite Leave to enter. The question here is about sole responsibility, and the applicant actually qualifying for a visa, not the stamp he will get in his passport when he enters the UK.

The question of sole responsibility applies to all child visa applicants. You say that it doesn't. It doesn't matter whether the mother has LLR or ILR, the matter of sole responsibility still applies. With respect, you may well be confusing the OP, and giving advice that is wrong.

[Richard W]

It doesn't matter whether the mother has LLR or ILR, the matter of sole responsibility still applies.

What do you base that statement on? I strongly suspect you're basing it on cases where the mother only has LLR.

With respect, you may well be confusing the OP, and giving advice that is wrong.

I thought we'd clarified that a mother cannot bring in her children when she does not have ILR simply on the basis that their father is dead. However, at http://www.ukba.home...s/introduction/, I stumbled over the following statement:

"a parent" includes

(a) the stepfather of a child whose father is dead and the reference to stepfather includes a relationship arising through civil partnership;

If the definition is a correct statement of the Rules, then the girlfriend's daughter would qualify under Rule 301(i)(a) as the OP would count as the settled parent! (The usual other conditions apply.) The rules for the children of polygamous unions when the mother dies chime with this - the wife established in the UK then counts as the mother, and the children previously excluded then usually qualify for entry. Note that my reading also removes the discrepancy between Rules 297 and 301.

[VisasPlus]

It doesn't matter whether the mother has LLR or ILR, the matter of sole responsibility still applies.

What do you base that statement on? I strongly suspect you're basing it on cases where the mother only has LLR.

With respect, you may well be confusing the OP, and giving advice that is wrong.

I thought we'd clarified that a mother cannot bring in her children when she does not have ILR simply on the basis that their father is dead. However, at http://www.ukba.home...s/introduction/, I stumbled over the following statement:

"a parent" includes

(a) the stepfather of a child whose father is dead and the reference to stepfather includes a relationship arising through civil partnership;

If the definition is a correct statement of the Rules, then the girlfriend's daughter would qualify under Rule 301(i)(a) as the OP would count as the settled parent! (The usual other conditions apply.) The rules for the children of polygamous unions when the mother dies chime with this - the wife established in the UK then counts as the mother, and the children previously excluded then usually qualify for entry. Note that my reading also removes the discrepancy between Rules 297 and 301.

Your current hypothesis falls down on the fact that paragraph 301 does not exist any more. It was removed when the new rules came into force on the 9th July 2012.

That said, the current rules ( regarding children joining parent(s) with limited to leave to enter or remain ) don't mention sole responsibility, and I'm wondering why. I think maybe I'm missing something, and will check further.

[Richard W]

Your current hypothesis falls down on the fact that paragraph 301 does not exist any more. It was removed when the new rules came into force on the 9th July 2012.

The replacement of Section 8 (Family Members) for completely new cases by Appendix FM was not at all obvious. (The continuing relevance of paragraph 301 for old cases was not stated until September!)

[VisasPlus]

Your current hypothesis falls down on the fact that paragraph 301 does not exist any more. It was removed when the new rules came into force on the 9th July 2012.

The replacement of Section 8 (Family Members) for completely new cases by Appendix FM was not at all obvious. (The continuing relevance of paragraph 301 for old cases was not stated until September!)

I'm not sure what your point is ?

[Richard W]

Your current hypothesis falls down on the fact that paragraph 301 does not exist any more. It was removed when the new rules came into force on the 9th July 2012.

The replacement of Section 8 (Family Members) for completely new cases by Appendix FM was not at all obvious. (The continuing relevance of paragraph 301 for old cases was not stated until September!)

I'm not sure what your point is ?

There are two points. Firstly, anyone reading the rules must take note of Appendix FM unless the old rules apply; they cannot simply use the list of contents to guide them to the right section of the rules. The 'family life' sections refer to more than application of Article 8 of the ECHR. (This, coupled with previous acquaintance with the rules, is how I ended up going to Rules 297 to 303 when fact-checking for this thread.)

The second point is that Rule 301 is not completely removed, as readings of the changes tabled in June (the 'July changes') and VisasPlus's posting might lead one to suppose. (It is frightening how many different interpretations a simple statement can be open to.) Rule 301 is still applicable to families unifying under the basis of the old rules. While it is not relevant to the OP, it will be relevant in some cases where the mother has already come to the UK and hopes to bring the children later.

One further question that does arise is whether one can switch from old rule 301 to Appendix FM Section EC-C. If the 'sole responsibility' requirement is gone, there will be families that would prefer to switch. I await the result of VisasPlus's research into the continued applicability of 'sole responsibility'. All I can find is guidance for ECOs that doesn't even address Rule 301(i)(a).

[VisasPlus]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

I was confused by the lack of any mention of sole responsibility in the new rules, and it is mostly early days for dependants of a sponsor granted a visa under the new rules to be applying to join them. However, I put a simple scenario to the UKBA :

The applicant wishes to join his mother in the UK. His mother applied for, and was granted a visa ( and leave to enter ) after 9^th July 2012. The child applicant will therefore fall to be considered under Appendix FM. Is sole responsibility a consideration ?

I have today received this response :

"You are correct that in this scenario there is no sole responsibility requirement to be met. This point is currently under review and may be subject to change in the near future."

It looks to me like someone forgot all about sole responsibility when they drafted the new rules, and UKBA are now in the position of having to try to retrieve the situation as quickly as possible. What it does mean is that the OP here, if he was applying for a settlement visa for his girlfriend/wife, and her child, now, he would not have to worry about whether the child lives with his mother or any other relative, come to that. Sole custody would not have to be proved. I suspect that by the time the OP comes to applying, then this loophole will have been fixed by UKBA.

This is, however, a pretty major loophole in the Rules at the moment, so take advantage while you can ! Mods may wish to make a separate thread of this information ?

[VisasPlus]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

I was confused by the lack of any mention of sole responsibility in the new rules, and it is mostly early days for dependants of a sponsor granted a visa under the new rules to be applying to join them. However, I put a simple scenario to the UKBA :

The applicant wishes to join his mother in the UK. His mother applied for, and was granted a visa ( and leave to enter ) after 9^th July 2012. The child applicant will therefore fall to be considered under Appendix FM. Is sole responsibility a consideration ?

I have today received this response :

"You are correct that in this scenario there is no sole responsibility requirement to be met. This point is currently under review and may be subject to change in the near future."

It looks to me like someone forgot all about sole responsibility when they drafted the new rules, and UKBA are now in the position of having to try to retrieve the situation as quickly as possible. What it does mean is that the OP here, if he was applying for a settlement visa for his girlfriend/wife, and her child, now, he would not have to worry about whether the child lives with his mother or any other relative, come to that. Sole custody would not have to be proved. I suspect that by the time the OP comes to applying, then this loophole will have been fixed by UKBA.

This is, however, a pretty major loophole in the Rules at the moment, so take advantage while you can ! Mods may wish to make a separate thread of this information ?

I'm being informed by a lawyer on another forum that my assessment above is wrong, and that "sole responsibility" still applies. Presumably that means that the UKBA response is also wrong. I have asked for a fuller explanation of how and why sole responsibility still applies in the scenario described. I will keep the post updated.

[Richard W]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "switching". People cannot switch between sections of the law that are more favourable to them, at least not in this matter, although it would indeed be favourable to them !.

Well, there may be people granted a fiancée visa under the old rules who could switch by letting the visa lapse and applying for a new one. Spouses could fail to apply for ILR. (Old ILR would take two years to lose.) As far as I am aware, it is not as tricky as trying to upgrade from British citizenship by descent to a British citizenship by naturalisation. None of these methods are appealing, and the Surinder Singh route would probably be better.

I fear the question you posed might be considered ambiguous - the mother could have been granted indefinite leave to enter. My reading of the rules is as follows. If custody of the child is actively shared between the biological parents, one is settled in the UK and the other is resident in Thailand, then the sole responsibility rule of Paragraph 297 still applies, in virtue of Paragraph A280(. However, if one has been admitted under the new rules to the UK with a view to settlement and the other is resident in Thailand, then Appendix FM Section EC-C applies and sole responsibility is irrelevant!

Whether ECOs, adjudicators and judges will agree that this is what Parliament intended is another matter. (Personally, I don't believe Parliament gave any thought to the matter.) It would also be consistent with an intent to abolish sole responsibility except for applications under the old rules, except that through exceptional circumstances (e.g. bereavement), indefinite leave might conceivably already have been granted under the new rules!

[Richard W]

I'm being informed by a lawyer on another forum that my assessment above is wrong, and that "sole responsibility" still applies. Presumably that means that the UKBA response is also wrong. I have asked for a fuller explanation of how and why sole responsibility still applies in the scenario described. I will keep the post updated.

I think I've found your discussion, and that's not quite what he said. He pointed out that Paragraph A280(d) keeps Paragraph 301 alive for families of members of HM Forces. Also, as I said in my previous post, Paragraph 297 (for parents settled in the UK) still has a sole responsibility clause.

He's also advising against trusting the Immigration Directorate Instructions. The current version was written before A280(f) was added, which resuscitated Paragraph 301 for children of parents who got limited leave to remain under the old rules.