Denial of Marriage Extension without Children?

[nfoboy]

So, Have been told by a couple of friends that at Pattaya Immigration, Pattaya Immigration is putting out that unless you have children, extension of marriage will be denied. (one friend already denied, and working on a retirement visa, the other one is now considering a move to Vietnam)

This is after a follow up call by someone "in the know" to their buddy in Immigration in Pattaya.

A high up official there gave him the word that it was not gonna happen without kids.

Is there some official change that I haven't spotted?

What are my friends option(s) if this isn't an actual law change, but a "policy" in Pattaya? Is it possible to apply at a different office?

[paz]

That is nonsense, based on hearsay of the worst category.

[khwaibah]

Pattaya bar stole 101.

[nfoboy]

This is not hearsay.

My friend was told Today (Tuesday 21 October, 2014), since he and his wife have no common law children together, (and his wife went to the Office and spoke to one of the officers at the Immigration Office and was told the same thing). (not sure what I can say about specifics for id'ing people) that no marriage extension is possible.

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (I just found out today), but since he met the requirements for retirement visa (enough in the bank) he just did a retirement extension.

So please, if you are just going to say this is BS, no need to respond. I am looking for well-informed replies that can help my friend to get around this current obstacle, as it is really getting him to think about leaving Thailand, and I don't think he really wants to do that.

[paz]

Since you are not willing to accept my answer, whatch this thread for more "well-informed" replies that will teach you how either your friends completely misunderstood, or didn't provide a correct, complete paperwork.

[Lite Beer]

Not sure what your mates were told but they are wrong.

(6) In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or must have no less than Baht 400,000 in a bank account in Thailand for the past two months to cover expenses for one year.

[nfoboy]

Lite Beer, absolutely concur. My question is, How to get around an official that is telling them this? I couldn't find anything related to this on the Thai Immigration Website, yet my friend and wife were told very plainly that this was a new rule change for married visa.

The couple that were told the SAME THING (so not a paperwork glitch, as they had done the extension before, but just switched to the Retirement as he had the money salted) a couple of weeks ago would be very interested in paz explaining how they misunderstood.

Edit: I'm not denying that this sounds completely "off" but I am inquiring here, as I know others have dealt with officials that have new "rules" that aren't really "rules" being enforced and would like to know what my friend can do to either A) get the official to realize it isn't a rule (in a face-saving way for everyone concerned) or bypass this official in some way. (Hua Hin come to mind to anyone for jumping the gun or rules?)

Edited October 21, 2014 by nfoboy

[merijn]

There is no children requirement ruling to get a extension based on marriage. Period.

Unless he did not qualify for the extension there is no reason to get it denied.

[nfoboy]

There is no children requirement ruling to get a extension based on marriage. Period.

Unless he did not qualify for the extension there is no reason to get it denied.

Again, he presented all (normally) required paperwork. But was told no common law children, no extension. They even asked that she had other children from previous marriage, but since not his, wouldn't count. No problems with money, license, etc... He's done this before.

And for those that say no official would do this, think about where you live...

[noahvail]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

[nfoboy]

Common Law Children as in "Children lawfully born between the both of them" Guess that should be in-common... oops

[rgs2001uk]

Lite Beer, absolutely concur. My question is, How to get around an official that is telling them this? I couldn't find anything related to this on the Thai Immigration Website, yet my friend and wife were told very plainly that this was a new rule change for married visa.

The couple that were told the SAME THING (so not a paperwork glitch, as they had done the extension before, but just switched to the Retirement as he had the money salted) a couple of weeks ago would be very interested in paz explaining how they misunderstood.

Edit: I'm not denying that this sounds completely "off" but I am inquiring here, as I know others have dealt with officials that have new "rules" that aren't really "rules" being enforced and would like to know what my friend can do to either A) get the official to realize it isn't a rule (in a face-saving way for everyone concerned) or bypass this official in some way. (Hua Hin come to mind to anyone for jumping the gun or rules?)

yet my friend and wife were told very plainly that this was a new rule change for married visa.

Lets assume the wife is Thai, so can easily converse with the official, did the wife ask to see this new rule?

What website is it on?

What to do, walk out and go back tomorrow, get a new number and wait for a different official.

Head to Bkk and apply there.

Did the Thai woman ask to talk to a supervisor?

More BS from soi BK and farang dont know buffalo shyt.

[paz]

The couple that were told the SAME THING (so not a paperwork glitch, as they had done the extension before, but just switched to the Retirement as he had the money salted) a couple of weeks ago would be very interested in paz explaining how they misunderstood.

I don't have to explain anything, you are welcome to interact with others.

[rgs2001uk]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

"common law children together."

Correct me if I am wrong, Thai law has no such thing as common law children, no such thing as de facto marriage.

You are either married legally or not, if you aint married (legally) you aint the father.

[nfoboy]

rgs2001uk, concur on the go back the next day (and have mentioned that) but sometimes... you get the same official, or they sit next to each other, and then face comes along... (Not sure how far she pushed the official... when you get up to bird territory, you tend to stop there)

As far as going to BKK, that is what I think might be the best option, but am wondering from those in the know here: Which office to go to? They have condo/money all here in Pattaya, so didn't know if it would look too strange to be applying for extension (previously done in Pattaya) outside of the local zone...

For the children comment... My mistake, they have no children together, and yes I understand that you have to be married for children to be attributed to the Father.

Edited October 21, 2014 by nfoboy

[mxyzptlk]

This is not hearsay.

My friend was told Today (Tuesday 21 October, 2014), since he and his wife have no common law children together, (and his wife went to the Office and spoke to one of the officers at the Immigration Office and was told the same thing). (not sure what I can say about specifics for id'ing people) that no marriage extension is possible.

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (I just found out today), but since he met the requirements for retirement visa (enough in the bank) he just did a retirement extension.

So please, if you are just going to say this is BS, no need to respond. I am looking for well-informed replies that can help my friend to get around this current obstacle, as it is really getting him to think about leaving Thailand, and I don't think he really wants to do that.

I wonder if this is a case of your friend qualifying for a retirement extension which is less paperwork and less effort for the immigration office, that it was an attempt to steer him along that path to save the extra hassle for the immigration office. A good friend of mine applied for an extension based on marriage (at a different office) but as he had 800.000 seasoned, they pushed him down the retirement path....

Edited October 21, 2014 by mxyzptlk

[nfoboy]

He is short the retirement by about 9 months for the big 50... Not sure he has the 800 either... just the 400 that I have confirmed...

[rgs2001uk]

rgs2001uk, concur on the go back the next day (and have mentioned that) but sometimes... you get the same official, or they sit next to each other, and then face comes along... (Not sure how far she pushed the official... when you get up to bird territory, you tend to stop there)

As far as going to BKK, that is what I think might be the best option, but am wondering from those in the know here: Which office to go to? They have condo/money all here in Pattaya, so didn't know if it would look too strange to be applying for extension (previously done in Pattaya) outside of the local zone...

For the children comment... My mistake, they have no children together, and yes I understand that you have to be married for children to be attributed to the Father.

One thing I have learned over the years, these immi people aint stupid.

Another thing I have learned is, dont believe everything "friends" tell you.

For Bkk head to Chaeng Wattana.

Condo/money is totally irrelevant.

If its the same official, go back to counter and get a new ticket, then wait for a different one (been there done that).

[Suradit69]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

"common law children together."

Correct me if I am wrong, Thai law has no such thing as common law children, no such thing as de facto marriage.

You are either married legally or not, if you aint married (legally) you aint the father.

"since he and his wife have no common law children together"

There would be no reason for someone at immigrations to use the phrase in reference to children of a married couple... actually I'm a bit skeptical they'd use the term "common law children" at all. Presumably if the person had proof that he was the father of a child he could get an extension based on that, not a marriage extension if he weren't legally married.

Q - What is a common law relationship?

A - A common law relationship is one in which two people live together but are not legally married to each other. For the relationship to be common law the couple must live together in a 'marriage-like' relationship, for example, by sharing finances, and publicly referring to themselves as partners or spouses.

http://www.legalinfo.org/family-law/common-law-relationships.html

Edited October 21, 2014 by Suradit69

[noahvail]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

"common law children together."

Correct me if I am wrong, Thai law has no such thing as common law children, no such thing as de facto marriage.

You are either married legally or not, if you aint married (legally) you aint the father.

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father. There certainly are cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate, usually the result of personal problems between the parents.

[mxyzptlk]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This is not hearsay.

My friend was told Today (Tuesday 21 October, 2014), since he and his wife have no common law children together, (and his wife went to the Office and spoke to one of the officers at the Immigration Office and was told the same thing). (not sure what I can say about specifics for id'ing people) that no marriage extension is possible.

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (I just found out today), but since he met the requirements for retirement visa (enough in the bank) he just did a retirement extension.

So please, if you are just going to say this is BS, no need to respond. I am looking for well-informed replies that can help my friend to get around this current obstacle, as it is really getting him to think about leaving Thailand, and I don't think he really wants to do that.

This is not hearsay.

My friend was told Today (Tuesday 21 October, 2014), since he and his wife have no common law children together, (and his wife went to the Office and spoke to one of the officers at the Immigration Office and was told the same thing). (not sure what I can say about specifics for id'ing people) that no marriage extension is possible.

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (I just found out today), but since he met the requirements for retirement visa (enough in the bank) he just did a retirement extension.

So please, if you are just going to say this is BS, no need to respond. I am looking for well-informed replies that can help my friend to get around this current obstacle, as it is really getting him to think about leaving Thailand, and I don't think he really wants to do that.

I wonder if this is a case of your friend qualifying for a retirement extension which is less paperwork and less effort for the immigration office, that it was an attempt to steer him along that path to save the extra hassle for the immigration office. A good friend of mine applied for an extension based on marriage (at a different office) but as he had 800.000 seasoned, they pushed him down the retirement path....

He is short the retirement by about 9 months for the big 50... Not sure he has the 800 either... just the 400 that I have confirmed...

If you re-read your first post above (which is what my reply is based on) you said he got a retirement extension .......

Edited October 21, 2014 by mxyzptlk

[nfoboy]

rgs2001uk, concur on the go back the next day (and have mentioned that) but sometimes... you get the same official, or they sit next to each other, and then face comes along... (Not sure how far she pushed the official... when you get up to bird territory, you tend to stop there)

As far as going to BKK, that is what I think might be the best option, but am wondering from those in the know here: Which office to go to? They have condo/money all here in Pattaya, so didn't know if it would look too strange to be applying for extension (previously done in Pattaya) outside of the local zone...

For the children comment... My mistake, they have no children together, and yes I understand that you have to be married for children to be attributed to the Father.

One thing I have learned over the years, these immi people aint stupid.

Another thing I have learned is, dont believe everything "friends" tell you.

For Bkk head to Chaeng Wattana.

Condo/money is totally irrelevant.

If its the same official, go back to counter and get a new ticket, then wait for a different one (been there done that).

I wouldn't put it past anyone to have a misunderstanding, but when the wife did try to run it up the flagpole, it came back very different than what I (or anyone else reading Thai Immigration website, or having done them before) would expect. No children together, then not happening (for them, at this time, with this official)

Chaeng Wattana is where I shall recommend for them to head, as my personal thought is that Pattaya Immigration is too small to avoid being seen by the same official that just told you no.

Thanks for the input.

[paz]

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father. There certainly are cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate, usually the result of personal problems between the parents.

Not for Thai law. An unmarried woman could ask to put Jorge Bergoglio as father name on the birth certificate and that is what they would put. For an unmarried man to be legally recognized as father with all the rights, including immigration related matters, need mother and child older than 7 to agree, if child is younger needs a court decision.

Edited October 21, 2014 by paz

[nfoboy]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This is not hearsay.

My friend was told Today (Tuesday 21 October, 2014), since he and his wife have no common law children together, (and his wife went to the Office and spoke to one of the officers at the Immigration Office and was told the same thing). (not sure what I can say about specifics for id'ing people) that no marriage extension is possible.

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (I just found out today), but since he met the requirements for retirement visa (enough in the bank) he just did a retirement extension.

So please, if you are just going to say this is BS, no need to respond. I am looking for well-informed replies that can help my friend to get around this current obstacle, as it is really getting him to think about leaving Thailand, and I don't think he really wants to do that.

He is short the retirement by about 9 months for the big 50... Not sure he has the 800 either... just the 400 that I have confirmed...

If you re-read your first post above (which is what my reply is based on) you said he got a retirement extension .......

(one friend already denied, and working on a retirement visa, the other one is now considering a move to Vietnam)

Also, the other friends I have, were told the same thing a few weeks ago, (note this means the other friend)

The friend that was told this a few weeks ago is the one that met the requirements for retirement-visa. The one told today is the one that is disheartened and dealing with a no win scenario.

[mxyzptlk]

Apologies for my misunderstanding....too many of your friends seem to be having problems which is what confused me. Hope they get their problems sorted....

Have a nice day

Edited October 21, 2014 by mxyzptlk

[rgs2001uk]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

"common law children together."

Correct me if I am wrong, Thai law has no such thing as common law children, no such thing as de facto marriage.

You are either married legally or not, if you aint married (legally) you aint the father.

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father. There certainly are cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate, usually the result of personal problems between the parents.

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father

No offence, suggest you read up on Thai law.

Are you trying to suggest if Little Lek across the soi names me as the father I am the father, she couuld name Mickey Mouse as the father for all its worth.

Sorry you aint in Kansas now Dot.

[noahvail]

OP, in your post #4, you use the phrase "common law children together." This confuses me. Common law would mean a Buddhist wedding in the village or just living together; either one without having registered the marriage at the amphoe. Yet how would he have gotten the original marriage extension without the amphoe marriage? Unless this is his first attempt at a marriage extension? Is a puzzlement.

"common law children together."

Correct me if I am wrong, Thai law has no such thing as common law children, no such thing as de facto marriage.

You are either married legally or not, if you aint married (legally) you aint the father.

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father. There certainly are cases where no father is listed on the birth certificate, usually the result of personal problems between the parents.

If your name is on the birth certificate as the father, then you are the father

No offence, suggest you read up on Thai law.

Are you trying to suggest if Little Lek across the soi names me as the father I am the father, she couuld name Mickey Mouse as the father for all its worth.

Sorry you aint in Kansas now Dot.

It has been many, many years since I was in Kansas. Suggest you re-read post #19.

But perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough for you. If my wife and I have a child, I can permit my name to be placed on the birth certificate. Whether it's through the courts or after the child is 7 - well, I would do it in the quickest way possible.

Not to stir up a hornet's nest, but our former PM is not married to the man whom the media calls her common-law husband. Her son, however, carries his father's surname.

Kansas is boring. Thailand is much more interesting.

I'd love to keep this going, but I've got a blood draw at 7 a.m. tomorrow, so I'm off to bed.

[ubonjoe]

There is no rule you must have a child to apply for an extension of stay based upon marriage to Thai.

One officer cannot deny your application you can ask to talk to supervisor.

Bangkok immigration would not do the extension unless living there. It could be a route to file a complaint is all.

[mca]

One officer cannot deny your application you can ask to talk to supervisor.

I agree. I had a similar situation a few years back. Wanted to extend using my wife's salary and was told point blank by the officer that I couldn't. Knowing full well I could I politely asked to speak to the senior officer ( who was ear-wigging anyhow) who confirmed that I could and passed me on to another officer who processed the paperwork.

[chrisinth]

Well, that's me screwed and I'm sure many more like me.

Short of having the 'snip' reversed (and the missus with her tubes untied) then lots of bedroom exercise, we might as well move to another country if we can't get the next extension.

But we have only been married for 15 years, so 'grandfathering' should be introduced into this equation?

OP, would suggest that your friends contact Bkk immigration and let them know what is being said in Pattaya. That will clear any misunderstanding.

Absolutely ridiculous thread.