Immigration Interview with minors

[bigmacdaddybone]

There has to be a reasonable solution that can satisfy IMO.......i'm sure there intention is not to leave a child without parents or support?....... Yes after the process for the current Visa renewal ....the Ex wife was asked to appear before the IMO official ....which she did ............ the previous 2 renewals that was not required ....even though the divorce was not finalized ..... just a point to bear in mind ......... at the time of the application process after the interview with the ex.... and where the ex told the official there will be times in the future when she cannot present herself to the official...... we were then told to present a letter that the ex now & forever consents to the father applying for visas to be in Thailand in the event of her absence ...to care for the child ..... when this letter was presented to verify if the wording was correct. i was told it was not acceptable but for what reason ...i dont know & no i never had to be accompanied by my ex wife for visa applications .... i had a job & worked here for 6 years with a work permit. & yes now the official asked the ex to be present for next years renewal

[bigmacdaddybone]

In the US, there is the legal saw about being "... a little bit pregnant". Either you are or you aren't.

In Thailand, the 2 parental custody statuses are Joint or Sole. That's it.

I've been thinking about this interpretation of Joint Custody ....... If 2 people have agreed to be legally responsible for the support of a child sharing not only the legal rights ....but also both bearing responsibility to be a parent to that child ...... At what point does the welfare of the child become the focus of this discussion. it seems there is a view that joint custody is 50% / 50% but it can also be viewed as !00% / 100% both parties the mother & father have 100% responsibility to care for a child & agree with that ............ i just don't see anything in our discussion or anything in writing based on the requirements of this visa process that can justify putting a child's welfare & well being in jeopardy or creating a situation where the woman must endure financial hardship or arduous travel to fulfill this responsibility..... and why the same consensual process used to satisfy the government (a written agreement) is not satisfactory here..... how is joint custody the issue? ..

[elviajero]

In the US, there is the legal saw about being "... a little bit pregnant". Either you are or you aren't.

In Thailand, the 2 parental custody statuses are Joint or Sole. That's it.

I've been thinking about this interpretation of Joint Custody ....... If 2 people have agreed to be legally responsible for the support of a child sharing not only the legal rights ....but also both bearing responsibility to be a parent to that child ...... At what point does the welfare of the child become the focus of this discussion. it seems there is a view that joint custody is 50% / 50% but it can also be viewed as !00% / 100% both parties the mother & father have 100% responsibility to care for a child & agree with that ............ i just don't see anything in our discussion or anything in writing based on the requirements of this visa process that can justify putting a child's welfare & well being in jeopardy or creating a situation where the woman must endure financial hardship or arduous travel to fulfill this responsibility..... and why the same consensual process used to satisfy the government (a written agreement) is not satisfactory here..... how is joint custody the issue? ..

Sorry but you seem to want to push the blame on to others for your and your wife's decisions. You may not like the choices, but your child can live with her mother or with you and does not need to be abandoned in Thailand. Immigration are not responsible for your child's welfare, you are. I have sympathy, and think the requirements should be less stringent, but they are what they are.

IMO; some offices want the parent (you) and the child to live together. If you and your wife have joint custody the child could be taken away to live with the mother, which would invalidate the reason for your permission to stay.

[bigmacdaddybone]

never pointed blame ...... divorce has some unexpected consequences ...this situation of supporting this child in the absence of the mother .....is one of them .........there are many years to be prepared for supporting the child ........... i just want to know all i have to do to provide that support from me .....in Thailand....... i'm not following you when you say the child could could be taken away ...or that i'm blaming someone for decisions made ...........do you mean out of Thailand? ......i am not trying to avoid the responsibility of support ....... my tone here is one of concern ...not finger pointing

[laolover88]

I am a very pedantic man. Immigration need to WRITE down what they want, when and why. They won't like it; but you have reached a stage where one person says this and another that is useless. You must go as high up as you need to get a clear "specification" of requirements.!!

[bigmacdaddybone]

In the US, there is the legal saw about being "... a little bit pregnant". Either you are or you aren't.

In Thailand, the 2 parental custody statuses are Joint or Sole. That's it.

I've been thinking about this interpretation of Joint Custody ....... If 2 people have agreed to be legally responsible for the support of a child sharing not only the legal rights ....but also both bearing responsibility to be a parent to that child ...... At what point does the welfare of the child become the focus of this discussion. it seems there is a view that joint custody is 50% / 50% but it can also be viewed as !00% / 100% both parties the mother & father have 100% responsibility to care for a child & agree with that ............ i just don't see anything in our discussion or anything in writing based on the requirements of this visa process that can justify putting a child's welfare & well being in jeopardy or creating a situation where the woman must endure financial hardship or arduous travel to fulfill this responsibility..... and why the same consensual process used to satisfy the government (a written agreement) is not satisfactory here..... how is joint custody the issue? ..

Sorry but you seem to want to push the blame on to others for your and your wife's decisions. You may not like the choices, but your child can live with her mother or with you and does not need to be abandoned in Thailand. Immigration are not responsible for your child's welfare, you are. I have sympathy, and think the requirements should be less stringent, but they are what they are.

IMO; some offices want the parent (you) and the child to live together. If you and your wife have joint custody the child could be taken away to live with the mother, which would invalidate the reason for your permission to stay.

why are we consenting to and applying for a visa to stay here ..... the child could be taken away ?.....i dont get that part

[laolover88]

^{This thread runs and runs. Why? My Mrs, who is of course Thai, reckons she could solve the problem in 5 minutes at Immigration.}

[johnatong]

In the US, there is the legal saw about being "... a little bit pregnant". Either you are or you aren't.

In Thailand, the 2 parental custody statuses are Joint or Sole. That's it.

I've been thinking about this interpretation of Joint Custody ....... If 2 people have agreed to be legally responsible for the support of a child sharing not only the legal rights ....but also both bearing responsibility to be a parent to that child ...... At what point does the welfare of the child become the focus of this discussion. it seems there is a view that joint custody is 50% / 50% but it can also be viewed as !00% / 100% both parties the mother & father have 100% responsibility to care for a child & agree with that ............ i just don't see anything in our discussion or anything in writing based on the requirements of this visa process that can justify putting a child's welfare & well being in jeopardy or creating a situation where the woman must endure financial hardship or arduous travel to fulfill this responsibility..... and why the same consensual process used to satisfy the government (a written agreement) is not satisfactory here..... how is joint custody the issue? ..

Sorry but you seem to want to push the blame on to others for your and your wife's decisions. You may not like the choices, but your child can live with her mother or with you and does not need to be abandoned in Thailand. Immigration are not responsible for your child's welfare, you are. I have sympathy, and think the requirements should be less stringent, but they are what they are.

IMO; some offices want the parent (you) and the child to live together. If you and your wife have joint custody the child could be taken away to live with the mother, which would invalidate the reason for your permission to stay.

why are we consenting to and applying for a visa to stay here ..... the child could be taken away ?.....i dont get that part

I have no difficulty understanding what "elviajero" is saying.

However, I am interested in this "written agreement" you say exists. Is this "agreement" sanctioned by a Thai Court or Amphur and officially documented or is it something else ?

If the child's mother is "away" and cannot provide care then you should apply for sole custody. This will not prevent the child seeing or spending time with the mother but might ease your situation.

[elviajero]

IMO; some offices want the parent (you) and the child to live together. If you and your wife have joint custody the child could be taken away to live with the mother, which would invalidate the reason for your permission to stay.

why are we consenting to and applying for a visa to stay here ..... the child could be taken away ?.....i dont get that part

You would be applying for permission to live with your child. With joint custody you do not have absolute control over where the child lives, and if the child goes to live with the mother the reason for your permission to stay no longer exists. If you child was no longer living with you then your permission to stay is technically invalid.

[ubonjoe]

Clause 2.18 of the police order only states the extension is based upon being the parent of a Thai. There is no mention the child needs to be living with the parent. Also the order that covers documents required does not mention proof of custody of the child. Just a birth certificate to prove the relationship and legitimization documents.

Some immigration offices and/or officers are way over the top with some of their requirements to get the extension,

[laolover88]

Clause 2.18 of the police order only states the extension is based upon being the parent of a Thai. There is no mention the child needs to be living with the parent. Also the order that covers documents required does not mention proof of custody of the child. Just a birth certificate to prove the relationship and legitimization documents.

Some immigration offices and/or officers are way over the top with some of their requirements to get the extension,

Exactly. Get it written down.

[Maestro]

My interpretation of clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 is that for a foreigner to be a parent of a Thai national does not, by itself, qualify this parent for a one-year extension of stay. This parent must, in addition, be a family member of this Thai national, in the context of this topic of the child, ie must live with the child in the same household.

This is the principal reason why the immigration officer needs to speak to a child of 11 years, to obtain confirmation directly from the child that it is in fact living with the applicant for extension of stay. Usually, judging from reports of Thaivisa members, it is only when the child is younger than seven years that immigration wants to see a court ruling of sole custody.

I do not see this as a demonstration of a lack of care for the welfare of a child of 11 years on the part of the immigration office. It is my considered opinion that an immigration officer would be derelict in his duties if he did not interview this child. It is also my opinion that the applicant for extension of stay should be allowed to be present at this interview.

[johnatong]

My interpretation of clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 is that for a foreigner to be a parent of a Thai national does not, by itself, qualify this parent for a one-year extension of stay. This parent must, in addition, be a family member of this Thai national, in the context of this topic of the child, ie must live with the child in the same household.

This is the principal reason why the immigration officer needs to speak to a child of 11 years, to obtain confirmation directly from the child that it is in fact living with the applicant for extension of stay. Usually, judging from reports of Thaivisa members, it is only when the child is younger than seven years that immigration wants to see a court ruling of sole custody.

I do not see this as a demonstration of a lack of care for the welfare of a child of 11 years on the part of the immigration office. It is my considered opinion that an immigration officer would be derelict in his duties if he did not interview this child. It is also my opinion that the applicant for extension of stay should be allowed to be present at this interview.

I have a friend who takes care of his two young children. He always takes them with him when applying for an extension and the kids love to go because they know the IO always has a sweet for them !

On a more serious note I agree with your interpretation of the "rule".

[ubonjoe]

My interpretation of clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 is that for a foreigner to be a parent of a Thai national does not, by itself, qualify this parent for a one-year extension of stay. This parent must, in addition, be a family member of this Thai national, in the context of this topic of the child, ie must live with the child in the same household.

This is the principal reason why the immigration officer needs to speak to a child of 11 years, to obtain confirmation directly from the child that it is in fact living with the applicant for extension of stay. Usually, judging from reports of Thaivisa members, it is only when the child is younger than seven years that immigration wants to see a court ruling of sole custody.

I do not see this as a demonstration of a lack of care for the welfare of a child of 11 years on the part of the immigration office. It is my considered opinion that an immigration officer would be derelict in his duties if he did not interview this child. It is also my opinion that the applicant for extension of stay should be allowed to be present at this interview.

Being a family member is a general term. IMO it does not mean you have to live with them be a a family member.

Merriam Webster has a long list for family members. http://learnersdictionary.com/3000-words/topic/family-members I don't think you would be living with all of them.

Clause 2.18 defines who can be your family member.

"2.18 In the case of being a family member of a Thai national (applicable only to parents, spouse, children, adopted children, or spouse’s children):"

For children to get an extension it does state they have to be living with the family.

"(4) In the case of children, adopted children, or spouse's children, said children, adopted children, or spouse's children must not be married, must live with the alien as part of the family, and must not be over 20 years of age except in case of the person hereof is of illness or disability and cannot live without support of father or mother:"

For parents it only mentions the financial requirements.

"(5) In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year."

In other clauses of the police order that mentions children it is the same. In the case of parents it does not state they must be living with you. For example this from clause 2.20.

"(5)In the case of parents, the father or mother must be 50 years of age or over."

Source: Police Order 327/2557 basis for extension of stay

[elviajero]

My interpretation of clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 is that for a foreigner to be a parent of a Thai national does not, by itself, qualify this parent for a one-year extension of stay. This parent must, in addition, be a family member of this Thai national, in the context of this topic of the child, ie must live with the child in the same household.

This is the principal reason why the immigration officer needs to speak to a child of 11 years, to obtain confirmation directly from the child that it is in fact living with the applicant for extension of stay. Usually, judging from reports of Thaivisa members, it is only when the child is younger than seven years that immigration wants to see a court ruling of sole custody.

I do not see this as a demonstration of a lack of care for the welfare of a child of 11 years on the part of the immigration office. It is my considered opinion that an immigration officer would be derelict in his duties if he did not interview this child. It is also my opinion that the applicant for extension of stay should be allowed to be present at this interview.

Being a family member is a general term. IMO it does not mean you have to live with them be a a family member.

Merriam Webster has a long list for family members. http://learnersdictionary.com/3000-words/topic/family-members I don't think you would be living with all of them.

Clause 2.18 defines who can be your family member.

"2.18 In the case of being a family member of a Thai national (applicable only to parents, spouse, children, adopted children, or spouse’s children):"

For children to get an extension it does state they have to be living with the family.

"(4) In the case of children, adopted children, or spouse's children, said children, adopted children, or spouse's children must not be married, must live with the alien as part of the family, and must not be over 20 years of age except in case of the person hereof is of illness or disability and cannot live without support of father or mother:"

For parents it only mentions the financial requirements.

"(5) In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year."

In other clauses of the police order that mentions children it is the same. In the case of parents it does not state they must be living with you. For example this from clause 2.20.

"(5)In the case of parents, the father or mother must be 50 years of age or over."

Source: Police Order 327/2557 basis for extension of stay

IMO it makes sense that permission should only be granted to parents that live with the child.

I agree that it is not specified in the police orders, but there is nothing in the police orders that says a husband must live with his wife either, and I doubt there are many/any offices that would grant an extension based on marriage unless the husband lives with his wife. This being one reason for home visits and photos.

Not all requirements are written in the quoted police orders. Other unpublished national/local orders clearly exist.

[ubonjoe]

My interpretation of clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 is that for a foreigner to be a parent of a Thai national does not, by itself, qualify this parent for a one-year extension of stay. This parent must, in addition, be a family member of this Thai national, in the context of this topic of the child, ie must live with the child in the same household.

This is the principal reason why the immigration officer needs to speak to a child of 11 years, to obtain confirmation directly from the child that it is in fact living with the applicant for extension of stay. Usually, judging from reports of Thaivisa members, it is only when the child is younger than seven years that immigration wants to see a court ruling of sole custody.

I do not see this as a demonstration of a lack of care for the welfare of a child of 11 years on the part of the immigration office. It is my considered opinion that an immigration officer would be derelict in his duties if he did not interview this child. It is also my opinion that the applicant for extension of stay should be allowed to be present at this interview.

Being a family member is a general term. IMO it does not mean you have to live with them be a a family member.

Merriam Webster has a long list for family members. http://learnersdictionary.com/3000-words/topic/family-members I don't think you would be living with all of them.

Clause 2.18 defines who can be your family member.

"2.18 In the case of being a family member of a Thai national (applicable only to parents, spouse, children, adopted children, or spouse’s children):"

For children to get an extension it does state they have to be living with the family.

"(4) In the case of children, adopted children, or spouse's children, said children, adopted children, or spouse's children must not be married, must live with the alien as part of the family, and must not be over 20 years of age except in case of the person hereof is of illness or disability and cannot live without support of father or mother:"

For parents it only mentions the financial requirements.

"(5) In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year."

In other clauses of the police order that mentions children it is the same. In the case of parents it does not state they must be living with you. For example this from clause 2.20.

"(5)In the case of parents, the father or mother must be 50 years of age or over."

Source: Police Order 327/2557 basis for extension of stay

IMO it makes sense that permission should only be granted to parents that live with the child.

I agree that it is not specified in the police orders, but there is nothing in the police orders that says a husband must live with his wife either, and I doubt there are many/any offices that would grant an extension based on marriage unless the husband lives with his wife. This being one reason for home visits and photos.

Not all requirements are written in the quoted police orders. Other unpublished national/local orders clearly exist.

For marriage there is this in 2.18.

(3) In the case of spouse, the relationship must be de jure and de facto:

That is why the proof of living together is needed.

[laolover88]

But he is looking for an extension based on dependency, not marriage. Or have I got this all wrong?

[ubonjoe]

But he is looking for an extension based on dependency, not marriage. Or have I got this all wrong?

It is for being the parent of a Thai.

I was responding to a post that brought the requirements for marriage into the discussion.

[elviajero]

IMO it makes sense that permission should only be granted to parents that live with the child.

I agree that it is not specified in the police orders, but there is nothing in the police orders that says a husband must live with his wife either, and I doubt there are many/any offices that would grant an extension based on marriage unless the husband lives with his wife. This being one reason for home visits and photos.

Not all requirements are written in the quoted police orders. Other unpublished national/local orders clearly exist.

For marriage there is this in 2.18.

(3) In the case of spouse, the relationship must be de jure and de facto:

That is why the proof of living together is needed.

A relationship can be de jure and de facto even if husband and wife don't live together.

I agree with your point and why I said home visits and photos are one of the reasons.

My main point is that the rules do not specify that living together is required, but clearly immigration only want to issue extensions of stay based on marriages to husbands living with their wife.

[elviajero]

But he is looking for an extension based on dependency, not marriage. Or have I got this all wrong?

He is. You haven't.

[BritTim]

But he is looking for an extension based on dependency, not marriage. Or have I got this all wrong?

The digressions into discussion of other relationships is relevant. The police orders that determine the conditions under which an extension of stay can be granted cover all kinds of family relationships, with slightly different requirements for each. It is important to determine the distinctions to know whether immigration offices are applying the rules as written or making up their own.

As a practical matter, you will probably need to do what the immigration office dictates, but you might carefully and politely question their conditions if they contradict the police orders.

[Richard W]

They can't deport a Thai child.

How unlike the UK! British children can be removed from the UK with their parents, though it doesn't often happen.

[JLCrab]

...it seems there is no agreement as to why the ex need to be physically present at the immigration office ...... i'm just asking ?...

Until now you have said nowhere in this topic that the immigration officer told you that the presence of your ex-wife will be necessary for next year's application for extension of stay for the reason of living with your child.

In the past, when you were still married, your wife had to accompany you because your application was for the reason of living with your wife.

See Post #14.

[bigmacdaddybone]

Thank you to everyone that contributed....... There were not any problems with this year's renewal ...... the letter of consent from the ex-wife was accepted with all the other required documents.   Thanks again everyone .... I am certain comments made here helped this situation

[heretostay]

Hi, coming in late here and maybe beating a dead dog.  I will admit not having read the whole thread.

 

One fact, and my two cents:

 

FACT:  The mother always has the final say in all matters concerning children in this country, whether the father is Thai or foreign, whether married, divorced, or otherwise.

 

ADVICE:  Get a court order from the Family Court formalizing your agreement with the child's mother concerning your rights and responsibilities.  If the court has formally awarded you "joint custody," then immigration shouldn't be questioning your situation.

 

Sorry to be late with this.  And thanks for taking care of your kid.  Kids deserve all of our time, effort, and attention.

[bigmacdaddybone]

On 8/16/2017 at 1:46 PM, heretostay said:

Hi, coming in late here and maybe beating a dead dog.  I will admit not having read the whole thread.

 

One fact, and my two cents:

 

FACT:  The mother always has the final say in all matters concerning children in this country, whether the father is Thai or foreign, whether married, divorced, or otherwise.

 

ADVICE:  Get a court order from the Family Court formalizing your agreement with the child's mother concerning your rights and responsibilities.  If the court has formally awarded you "joint custody," then immigration shouldn't be questioning your situation.

 

Sorry to be late with this.  And thanks for taking care of your kid.  Kids deserve all of our time, effort, and attention.

Your advice is well taken .... and I am making moves to have a stronger document provided by the court system here to prevent problems in the future