Thai girlfriend pregnant on a UK tourist/fiance visa, can she have her baby in UK?

[tw25rw]

Friend of mine took his Thai girl over on a 6 month tourist visa and got her knocked up.. When he tried to register her with the NHS, they wouldn't have it until he mentioned she was pregnant. Then they pulled out the stops and she got everything for free, even though she overstayed. He married her while she was still pregnant. The kid is about 15 months old now. She recently got her visa to stay in the UK so can go home for the first time in over 2 years.

As has been said many times in this topic, the NHS is not going to refuse treatment to anyone who needs it; no matter what their immigration status in the UK is.

What surprises me, though, is that she was not charged for the treatment, and that she was able to convert her tourist visa into settlement from inside the UK.

Could you tell us how she managed to do those two things; I'm sure it will be of great interest to others as Beano's friend's experience is the norm in such situations.

BTW the immigration status or nationality of the father is mostly irrelevant in this matter; except that if he is British then the child would also be British and so would not need any form of visa or leave to remain to stay in the UK..

The husband has an Irish passport but lives in the UK. I don't know the other answers and don't necessarily believe him. But I did go to the wedding, so I know at least that bit is legal.

[7by7]

As he is Irish she would, once they were married, have been able to apply to live with him in the UK under the EEA regulations rather than the UK immigration rules (unless he has dual Irish/British nationality).

But applications for an EEA family permit should be made from outside the UK and until she had one and became ordinarily resident in the UK she would not be eligible for free at the point of use NHS treatment.

Such applications should also be resolved with the minimum of delay, so I cannot understand why she was unable to leave the UK for over two years.

Also, as she didn't become pregnant until she was in the UK she would still have been able to fly, and so leave the UK, when her 6 month visit visa expired.

I think your friend hasn't told you the full story.

Not that there is any reason why he should, of course.

Edited April 18, 2016 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

In which case EU law would have applied and the wife/partner entitled to remain as the partner of an EU/EEA citizen exerting his right to free movement within the EU. He is likely to be telling the truth but will have applied under completely different rules.

Had he been a British citizen, his wife would have been required to return to her home country to apply for settlement!

I suspect the partner of an EU citizen who is taking advantage of the right to movement is unlikely to be considered an overstayer (beyond a technicality). She is also entitled to access to the NHS and any bill issued by them would be waved!

[thonglorjimmy]

The OP asked a question and I gave an answer, now every tom dick and harry wants to take things out of context and make an issue.

You're like a dog with a flipping bone, you just won't let it go, when are you going to offer some meaningful advice instead of constantly criticising those who do.

[theoldgit]

The OP asked a question and I gave an answer, now every tom dick and harry wants to take things out of context and make an issue.

You're like a dog with a flipping bone, you just won't let it go, when are you going to offer some meaningful advice instead of constantly criticising those who do.

OK guys lets stop the bickering and just address the specific concerns of the OP.

[tw25rw]

As he is Irish she would, once they were married, have been able to apply to live with him in the UK under the EEA regulations rather than the UK immigration rules (unless he has dual Irish/British nationality).

But applications for an EEA family permit should be made from outside the UK and until she had one and became ordinarily resident in the UK she would not be eligible for free at the point of use NHS treatment.

Such applications should also be resolved with the minimum of delay, so I cannot understand why she was unable to leave the UK for over two years.

Also, as she didn't become pregnant until she was in the UK she would still have been able to fly, and so leave the UK, when her 6 month visit visa expired.

I think your friend hasn't told you the full story.

Not that there is any reason why he should, of course.

I spoke to him tonight and I know he hasn't given me the full story.. He did mention EEA, but is very vague about whether she actually has it. She didn't leave because she would have trouble coming back in. But he is convinced she will have it by December and they are planning a trip to Thailand then.

[7by7]

Well, good luck to them.

But, with respect, as he is Irish their situation is totally different, and so irrelevant, to that of the OP and his girlfriend; because a different set of rules apply.

The same as a British citizen and his Thai partner would come under the EEA regulations in the RoI; not the Irish immigration rules.

[7by7]

The OP asked a question and I gave an answer, now every tom dick and harry wants to take things out of context and make an issue.

You're like a dog with a flipping bone, you just won't let it go, when are you going to offer some meaningful advice instead of constantly criticising those who do.

OK guys lets stop the bickering and just address the specific concerns of the OP.

Indeed; and those concerns, assuming it's a visit visa his friend's girlfriend holds, are:-

1) If at her port of entry to the UK immigration see that she is pregnant and suspect that she has become or learned that she is pregnant since her visa was issued, or knew she was pregnant when she applied but didn't mention this material fact in the application, then they may view this as a change in circumstances sufficient to question her further as to her intentions in the UK.

They will be particularly concerned with her using the NHS and a possible overstay. Some people still believe that if they give birth while in the UK as a visitor that means they'll definitely be allowed to stay; they're wrong, even if the father is a British citizen.

If she fails to answer those questions to their satisfaction and address all their concerns, then they will refuse her entry.

2) Being aware of the above possibility her airline, if they discover that she is pregnant, and for her safety and that of her unborn child she should tell them, may refuse to carry her as they may be liable for the cost of returning her to Thailand should she be refused entry to the UK and possibly a fine of up to 20,000USD as well.

3) If she does enter the UK as a visitor, then she will not be entitled to any free at the point of use NHS care; except initial emergency treatment in an A&E department and some other treatments such as mental illness.

No NHS hospital will refuse to treat someone who needs it; particularly a pregnant woman. But any treatment she receives other than that above will be charged for.

If she leaves the UK without paying the bill, or arranging an agreed payment plan, then any future UK visa application will be refused until she has done one or the other.

Sotonfarang,

I'm not saying that she can't or shouldn't come; but she and your friend need to be aware of what may happen.

With respect to those who have offered it, ignore advice from people talking about

• situations in the past, the rules change regularly, the last such being in 2015;
• someone in the UK for settlement, the rules are different for visitors;
• EEA nationals and their family, the rules are different for them.

[Richard W]

2) Being aware of the above possibility her airline, if they discover that she is pregnant, and for her safety and that of her unborn child she should tell them, may refuse to carry her as they may be liable for the cost of returning her to Thailand should she be refused entry to the UK and possibly a fine of up to 20,000USD as well.

When did that oppressive law come in? I didn't think airlines were required to guess whether a visa would be rejected because of changed circumstances. After all, employers aren't required to check whether their employees are actually legally entitled to work unless they have reasons to suspect that they aren't. Establishing a statutory excuse suffices for employers.

[7by7]

I do not know when the international law (if that's the right description) requiring airlines who knowingly carry a passenger who does not meet the entry requirements for their destination to cover the cost of returning that passenger to their departure point and also being subject to a fine of up to $20,000 came into effect; but I do know it exists and is applies not just to the UK; as far as I am aware it applies everywhere.

As Tony M, who has actual professional experience, and is far more knowledgeable in this area than you or I, said earlier in the topic

I used to work with the airlines, assessing whether passengers were properly documented or not. On many occasions, we denied boarding to ladies who were pregnant, and who were attempting to travel to the UK to give birth. If they had not informed the ECO that they were pregnant at the time of application, or if the they became aware of the pregnancy after the visa was issued, then there was a possibility that the visa could be invalidated.

UK immigration do care if an arriving passenger is pregnant, especially if that passenger is a visa national who hasn't informed the ECO of that fact. I know that, as I use to work for UK immigration.

Of course, the key word in my opening statement is 'knowingly.' Which is why I said 'may refuse to carry her' not 'will refuse to carry her' in my previous post.

But due to the risk of the above severe financial penalties, airlines have been known to refuse to carry passengers for all sorts of reasons. The most common example to appear on forums such as this being because they don't have a return ticket; which, as you know, visitors entering the UK are not required to have.

If you read their T&Cs of carriage, you will see that that most (all?) airlines reserve the right to refuse carriage to anyone for this and many other reasons.

For example, from BA's General Conditions of Carriage

7. Our right to refuse to carry you or to ban you from travel

7a) Our right to refuse to carry you

We may decide to refuse to carry you or your baggage if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen.

7a6) If your mental or physical state or health is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it. (7by7 emphasis)

7a15) If you have not, or do not appear to have, valid travel documents.(Which obviously includes a valid visa if one is required.)

7a17) If the immigration authority for the country you are travelling to, or for a country in which you have a stopover, has told us (either orally or in writing) that it has decided not to allow you to enter that country, even if you have, or appear to have, valid travel documents.

7a38) If you have refused or failed to undergo health screening or a health examination requested by us or by a government or enforcement agency.

I am not saying that the OP's friend's girlfriend will be refused carriage if she tells the airline she is now pregnant, or if they discover it for themselves,; but it could; and surely it's better they be aware of that in advance.

Plus, of course, even if the airline do carry her there is still the risk of her being refused entry by UK immigration due to the significant change in her circumstances since the visa was issued.

[Richard W]

I do not know when the international law (if that's the right description) requiring airlines who knowingly carry a passenger who does not meet the entry requirements for their destination to cover the cost of returning that passenger to their departure point and also being subject to a fine of up to $20,000 came into effect; but I do know it exists and is applies not just to the UK; as far as I am aware it applies everywhere.

I agree that it does seem a bit of a stretch to regard Section 40 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2002 as a 'law'. (Penalties were introduced earlier, but that is not my question.) Now that section makes a carrier liable to a fine if the passenger has no passport (or similar) and has no visa if one is needed. The corresponding Immigration Directorate Instruction is Chapter 33. However, I see nothing there that would make an airline liable for conveying an Australian to the UK without a visa if he intended to work there. Likewise, it would seem odd to fine the airline for carrying a Thai with a visitor's visa if she in fact intends to settle there, or, to give what appears to be a real undetected example, carrying a Filipina with a marriage visit visa when she is in fact settling in the UK with a Hungarian national after marriage. (She was told that she should and could obtain a fiancée visa.)

As Tony M, who has actual professional experience, and is far more knowledgeable in this area than you or I, said earlier in the topic

I used to work with the airlines, assessing whether passengers were properly documented or not. On many occasions, we denied boarding to ladies who were pregnant, and who were attempting to travel to the UK to give birth. If they had not informed the ECO that they were pregnant at the time of application, or if the they became aware of the pregnancy after the visa was issued, then there was a possibility that the visa could be invalidated.

UK immigration do care if an arriving passenger is pregnant, especially if that passenger is a visa national who hasn't informed the ECO of that fact. I know that, as I use to work for UK immigration.

There is no mention of an explicit fine here. It looks as though either the airline was trying to save the cost of unbooked returns or the Immigration Service was hiding behind the airline. Why didn't Tony M simply revoke the visas?

[moobie]

2) Being aware of the above possibility her airline, if they discover that she is pregnant, and for her safety and that of her unborn child she should tell them, may refuse to carry her as they may be liable for the cost of returning her to Thailand should she be refused entry to the UK and possibly a fine of up to 20,000USD as well.

When did that oppressive law come in? I didn't think airlines were required to guess whether a visa would be rejected because of changed circumstances. After all, employers aren't required to check whether their employees are actually legally entitled to work unless they have reasons to suspect that they aren't. Establishing a statutory excuse suffices for employers.

My apologies if I'm made a mistake and have took this out of context but I'm English born and bred and can tell you that for the last 15 years or so showing my passport has been a requirement for employment to show I am able to work in the UK. This applies to both permanent roles and also contract positions. Especially the latter. If the passport was not a UK one then as well as the "photo-page" a copy of any work enabling visa stamp/documentation would also be required. I believe the fine for employing an illegal worker now stands in the region of £20,000 per individual found on the given premises. Hence, you can see why these checks have in fact became almost mandatory.

[Tony M]

I do not know when the international law (if that's the right description) requiring airlines who knowingly carry a passenger who does not meet the entry requirements for their destination to cover the cost of returning that passenger to their departure point and also being subject to a fine of up to $20,000 came into effect; but I do know it exists and is applies not just to the UK; as far as I am aware it applies everywhere.

I agree that it does seem a bit of a stretch to regard Section 40 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2002 as a 'law'. (Penalties were introduced earlier, but that is not my question.) Now that section makes a carrier liable to a fine if the passenger has no passport (or similar) and has no visa if one is needed. The corresponding Immigration Directorate Instruction is Chapter 33. However, I see nothing there that would make an airline liable for conveying an Australian to the UK without a visa if he intended to work there. Likewise, it would seem odd to fine the airline for carrying a Thai with a visitor's visa if she in fact intends to settle there, or, to give what appears to be a real undetected example, carrying a Filipina with a marriage visit visa when she is in fact settling in the UK with a Hungarian national after marriage. (She was told that she should and could obtain a fiancée visa.)

As Tony M, who has actual professional experience, and is far more knowledgeable in this area than you or I, said earlier in the topic

I used to work with the airlines, assessing whether passengers were properly documented or not. On many occasions, we denied boarding to ladies who were pregnant, and who were attempting to travel to the UK to give birth. If they had not informed the ECO that they were pregnant at the time of application, or if the they became aware of the pregnancy after the visa was issued, then there was a possibility that the visa could be invalidated.

UK immigration do care if an arriving passenger is pregnant, especially if that passenger is a visa national who hasn't informed the ECO of that fact. I know that, as I use to work for UK immigration.

There is no mention of an explicit fine here. It looks as though either the airline was trying to save the cost of unbooked returns or the Immigration Service was hiding behind the airline. Why didn't Tony M simply revoke the visas?

A visa can only be cancelled by an Entry Clearance Manager ( or higher grade), or his equivalent in the UK, not by someone like me, working in a foreign airport. In such situations as I have described, the passenger was often requested to appear at the Embassy or High Commission visa section the next day, and the situation was sorted out, one way or the other. Some would come for interview as requested, and some wouldn't.

[Richard W]

My apologies if I'm made a mistake and have took this out of context but I'm English born and bred and can tell you that for the last 15 years or so showing my passport has been a requirement for employment to show I am able to work in the UK. This applies to both permanent roles and also contract positions. Especially the latter. If the passport was not a UK one then as well as the "photo-page" a copy of any work enabling visa stamp/documentation would also be required. I believe the fine for employing an illegal worker now stands in the region of £20,000 per individual found on the given premises. Hence, you can see why these checks have in fact became almost mandatory.

The key lies in the checks made. For a British passport, the likeliest problems aren't very likely at all, but exist. Actually, for someone born in the UK, a birth certificate and appropriate correspondence should be good enough.

A quite common situation seems to be a man with a residence card held because his wife is an EU citizen. In many cases, she has stopped 'exercising her treaty rights', with the result that he loses the right to be in the country, let alone work. Have you known employers check whether the EU spouse is still exercising treaty rights, or, even more complicatedly, has achieved undocumented permanent residence? However, if the residence card has not expired and the employer does not know the wife is not working, this card is good enough to provide a statutory check.

The point is that simple checks by carriers, employers and landlords should be good enough.

[sotonfarang]

okay everyone, thanks for your input.

some good points on here. I for one as I think i posted early on is that this is not for me, its for my inexperienced friend.

I have 2 girls already , 1 born in the UK 6 yrs ago who has dual nationality and 1 born here in Thailand 5 months ago, she also had no problems getting dual nationality.

I can gather, that on a fiance visa, she may well get a bill which if goes unpaid, can affect future visa applications. Once a settlement visa , allowing her to be registered with a local GP, is obtained she will receive free NHS treatment.

If I remember rightly my wife had to get a National Insurance card before she could register with a GP, cant remember too well as we have had to do so much over the last 10 years to live our lives together.

there are many complications to this story, or could be. problems with the birth etc which would also put the bill up. He is now seriously considering what to do. bitter sweet, happy to be a father of course, but complicated to say the least. Great bit of timing eh?

[theoldgit]

I can gather, that on a fiance visa, she may well get a bill which if goes unpaid, can affect future visa applications. Once a settlement visa , allowing her to be registered with a local GP, is obtained she will receive free NHS treatment

As I understand that's not quite correct, a Fiancé Visa is only issued for six months, so yes failure to settle any NHS bill could certainly effect any further applications. Before a Settlement Visa or Further Leave to Remain is granted a NHS Surcharge has to be paid, this surcharge would cover any NHS treatment.

[TuskegeeBen]

First wait until after the baby is born, in Thailand. Then get the DNA results, before making any further commitments.

Yeah, I know, you believe your Thai g-f is different. I hate to burst your bubble, but 50-years of Thai "g-f" history, totally debunks that belief syndrome

Edited April 22, 2016 by TuskegeeBen

[moobie]

OP. you may find this of link use :-

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/3-women-from-abroad/entitlement-to-free-nhs-maternity-care-for-women-from-abroad/

[sotonfarang]

OP. you may find this of link use :-

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/advice-2/mums-dads-scenarios/3-women-from-abroad/entitlement-to-free-nhs-maternity-care-for-women-from-abroad/

thank you very much. helpful info. i will pass this onto my friend