Daughter travelling with me/will I have difficulty leaving Thailand with her?

[Steiner]

Do you need to come to Thailand? If the mother can be toxic, and it sounds like she could, why risk her causing issues?

What if she discovered you were here via contact from immigration if something did go wrong, and saw a pay day? You could be stuck here for god knows how long trying to sort it out.

 

Remember that case of the 2 British girls who lived in the UK and were at school there, that were abducted by the mother? Took some time for the father to get his children back from an abusive mother.

 

Personally my kid's security and safety would be more important that a few weeks in Thailand.

I would look elsewhere.

[MikeyIdea]

 

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 9:07 AM, performance said:

If you came into Thailand on UK passports and only holidaying have return tickets !

There will not be any problem. She holds a UK passport. Enough said. Also if you encounter a racist IMO officer. Simply say how nice your vacation  was and it was good for my daughter to see her country and pay tribute to his majesty. NEXT

 

A lot of ill-informed advice on ThaiVisa on this subject

 

The Hague convention in regards to child abduction basically handles 2 things: 1) it determines in which country the court case of an internationally abducted child should take place and 2) it is a commitment to stem child trafficking

 

A few hints;

Surname doesn't matter...

Having a return ticket doesn't matter...

Passport that a child enters a country with doesn't matter...

 

In this case: It is just highly unlikely that immigration would act if the child speaks English, looks like a living question mark when someone speaks Thai to him, doesn't have a Thai name and is travelling on a British passport together with his British father and they have matching entry stamps.

 

It is a fact that the child is THAI and immigration has all the right to demand either evidence of sole custody or confirmation from the other parent that the child is allowed to leave the country if they find out. Is Surname evidence? No, Return ticket? No, Passport? No...

 

It is quite useless to question the right of immigration to hold a child pending satisfactory evidence. Of course they have this right and I am glad that they are following up more carefully nowadays.

 

Countries that are members of the Hague convention will determine habitual residence and it is often the country where the child has its home - unless the child was abducted there - . Where custody was cleared first in a court of law matters much so the OP should clearly seek sole custody in the UK

 

Mikey

 

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[Johnniey]

Having the same surname DOES matter and if they are the same, there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, your kid could through by themselves.

[MikeyIdea]

17 hours ago, Johnniey said:

Having the same surname DOES matter and if they are the same, there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, your kid could through by themselves.

 

Eeehhh, the legal age for a child to travel and what documentation is required depends on the country the child is entering or leaving, not the country of residence, the same for a child travelling alone

 

 

[Paul Catton]

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 9:28 PM, MikeyIdea said:

 

 

A lot of ill-informed advice on ThaiVisa on this subject

 

The Hague convention in regards to child abduction basically handles 2 things: 1) it determines in which country the court case of an internationally abducted child should take place and 2) it is a commitment to stem child trafficking

 

A few hints;

Surname doesn't matter...

Having a return ticket doesn't matter...

Passport that a child enters a country with doesn't matter...

 

In this case: It is just highly unlikely that immigration would act if the child speaks English, looks like a living question mark when someone speaks Thai to him, doesn't have a Thai name and is travelling on a British passport together with his British father and they have matching entry stamps.

 

It is a fact that the child is THAI and immigration has all the right to demand either evidence of sole custody or confirmation from the other parent that the child is allowed to leave the country if they find out. Is Surname evidence? No, Return ticket? No, Passport? No...

 

It is quite useless to question the right of immigration to hold a child pending satisfactory evidence. Of course they have this right and I am glad that they are following up more carefully nowadays.

 

Countries that are members of the Hague convention will determine habitual residence and it is often the country where the child has its home - unless the child was abducted there - . Where custody was cleared first in a court of law matters much so the OP should clearly seek sole custody in the UK

 

Mikey

 

 

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) that provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another.

The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed immediately before an alleged wrongful removal or retention thereby deterring a parent from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court. The Convention applies only to children under the age of 16

It has nothing at all to do with child trafficking.

Article 35 & 36 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC, or UNCRC)

covers child trafficking is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for the purpose of exploitation.

Being illegal, it will be codified within the criminal legislation of the signatory parties.

 

"I am a single dad living in the uk and my daughter is aged 9 who is half Thai living with me in the UK also"

The OP hasn't provided explicit details regarding the mother, their present relationship status and at birth, ,  and

So one can only infer from his use of the terminology "single dad" to mean custodial parent as recognized by UK Authorities and who has responsibility for the day to day care of his daughter.

His 9 year old daughter is resident with him, again this would seem to be sanctioned by UK Authority by virtue of the above.

This seems to be borne out by his resident daughter being the holder of a UK Passport which would confer legitimacy regarding claim.

 

"I was planning on entering Thailand with UK passports for both of us"

His daughter whilst travelling will be deemed to be a British Citizen being the holder of a UK passport, the fact that she has 50% genes emanating from a Thai national does not trump this position unless there is an assumption of official documentation providing a contradictory overarching position.

As the OP hasn't stated this to be the case, assumptions are simply baseless until validated.

 

"It is a fact that the child is THAI and immigration has all the right to demand either evidence of sole custody or confirmation from the other parent that the child is allowed to leave the country if they find out"

It is a fact the child has a Thai 50% gene pool passed down maternally, what is more abundantly clear is the child is also a 100% percent British subject who wishes to enter and exit Thailand for a short duration. the mandatory application to enter Thailand is more significant than you give it credit, as it shows precedence of the child's legal right to be overseas, which conversely gives legitimacy for right to departure.

Immigration do not have the right to arbitrarily impede lawful and legitimate travel, abuse of process is not a right regardless of prevalence.

 

"It is quite useless to question the right of immigration to hold a child pending satisfactory evidence"

UK Embassy staff would have the auspice to question immigration regarding a non-observance to "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary".

 

Again I would reiterate, Malaysia looks nice.

Being an alienated parent in an abduction case is not a path I would recommend, even with a successful outcome.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Paul Catton

[Paul Catton]

39 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

 

Eeehhh, the legal age for a child to travel and what documentation is required depends on the country the child is entering or leaving, not the country of residence, the same for a child travelling alone

 

 

Children traveling without parents can travel to and out of the country and transit in Thailand, which of course has no bearing when accompanied by their guardian.

Unless there is an active border alert (formerly known as a CAPPS listing) a child is at liberty to travel at any age with legal guardianship.

 

Criteria for unaccompanied minors are as follows: 

The guardian is required to inform the airline at least 24 hours prior to the flight departure as each airline limits the number of unaccompanied minor to travel on board in each flight as follows: Royal First Class/Royal Silk Class: the airline accepts only one 8-11 year old child. In Economy Class, the airline accepts six 5-7 year old children and thirty 8-11 year old children.

The guardian is required to provide the child's details, including name and surname, age, gender, date, flight number, departing airport and arriving airport. The name, address, contact number of the child's guardian who brings the child to the departing airport as well as the name and contact number of the guardian who picks up the child at the arriving airport must also be provided. All details must be completed on the 'Handling Advice for Unaccompanied Minor' form (FORM THAI 1122) as evidence.

The guardian who picks up the child at the arriving airport must correspond with the name specified at the Selling Office.

The ticket type must be "Confirmed" and must not be "ID" ticket. However, rewarded tickets from ROP (Royal Orchid Plus) are eligible.

The guardian who brings the child cannot leave the airport immediately. They must remain at the airport until the child's aircraft departs.

Infants or children under 5 years old cannot be UM (unaccompanied minors) unless accompanied by a person aged 12 years old or more.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Paul Catton

[Johnniey]

^^

Thanks for that, very interesting. So if travelling with kids over 12, the parent doesn't need any of that crap like letters from other parent/amphurs etc, that I've heard been said. The kids can go through themselves, before the parent.

[MikeyIdea]

 

51 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

Children traveling without parents can travel to and out of the country and transit in Thailand, which of course has no bearing when accompanied by their guardian.

Unless there is an active border alert (formerly known as a CAPPS listing) a child is a liberty to travel at any age with a legal guardian.

 

2 things are actually not correct.

Many countries including Thailand require consent from all legal guardians to be allowed to travel abroad. Britain is the same too actually: https://www.gov.uk/permission-take-child-abroad. Quote Taking a child abroad without permission is child abduction end quote. Not one but all

 

I think that you also are saying that if I and a British mother have a child and we have shared custody but I live in Thailand with the child, then the mother has no right to stop the child from leaving the UK again if we go on holiday there. That is not so. She certainly does. And the same thing works the opposite way with a Thai child

 

51 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

Criteria for unaccompanied minors are as follows: 

The guardian is required to inform the airline at least 24 hours prior to the flight departure as each airline limits the number of unaccompanied minor to travel on board in each flight as follows: Royal First Class/Royal Silk Class: the airline accepts only one 8-11 year old child. In Economy Class, the airline accepts six 5-7 year old children and thirty 8-11 year old children.

The guardian is required to provide the child's details, including name and surname, age, gender, date, flight number, departing airport and arriving airport. The name, address, contact number of the child's guardian who brings the child to the departing airport as well as the name and contact number of the guardian who picks up the child at the arriving airport must also be provided. All details must be completed on the 'Handling Advice for Unaccompanied Minor' form (FORM THAI 1122) as evidence.

The guardian who picks up the child at the arriving airport must correspond with the name specified at the Selling Office.

The ticket type must be "Confirmed" and must not be "ID" ticket. However, rewarded tickets from ROP (Royal Orchid Plus) are eligible.

The guardian who brings the child cannot leave the airport immediately. They must remain at the airport until the child's aircraft departs.

Infants or children under 5 years old cannot be UM (unaccompanied minors) unless accompanied by a person aged 12 years old or more.

 

You are quoting airline rules, they have nothing to do with the rules for a Thai child leaving Thailand

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[Apiwan2]

In October I took my kids to penang .

The IO singled us out due to trafficking we had to take a pic with ghetto camera for all kids.

Surname the same.

Nice letter from mom and we were allowed to pass.

[MikeyIdea]

31 minutes ago, Johnniey said:

^^

Thanks for that, very interesting. So if travelling with kids over 12, the parent doesn't need any of that crap like letters from other parent/amphurs etc, that I've heard been said. The kids can go through themselves, before the parent.

 

Most Western countries have 16 or 18 as the age to travel without parental consent, most Asian countries have 18

 

If a child fulfills the above age requirements then they can go through themselves without letters of consent, yes, otherwise the same consent rules apply regardless of if guardian is travelling with them or not

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[puffy]

I doubt you will have any problems. I took my 3 year old on a holiday to the UK and there was no problem leaving, although I did have a letter from her Mum, it was not looked at and in fact, instead of having to queue they moved me into the VIP line and just went straight through.

[MikeyIdea]

 

 

Hi Paul, I missed that you made two posts

 

I am sure that you have the right intentions but you are not correctly informed. 

- Immigration does indeed have the right to act, of course they do

- Your comments - custodial parent as recognized by UK..., sanctioned by UK Authority..., child is also a 100% percent British subject who.. British subject... British subject... British subject... All that only matters in Britain

- Most embassy websites have information warning about that their ability to help is non-existing if a dual-citizen child enters his second home country

 

Thailand has implemented stronger controls and I must say that I personally think it is great. I stand by my assessment that the OP should be safe bringing his Thai/British child to Thailand on his British passport but that assessment goes down the drain the second immigration finds out that he also is a Thai citizen

 

"Turn it around" and it is easier to see if it still makes sense

 

A British mother has a child with me and we have shared custody but I live in Thailand with the child. We go on holiday to the UK. Has the British mother no right to stop her British child from leaving the UK again? That is not so. She certainly does

 

Thailand is the same

 

[MikeyIdea]

Can't delete

Edited November 21, 2016 by MikeyIdea

[Paul Catton]

On ‎21‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:49 PM, MikeyIdea said:

 

Hi Paul, I missed that you made two posts

 

I am sure that you have the right intentions but you are not correctly informed. 

- Immigration does indeed have the right to act, of course they do

- Your comments - custodial parent as recognized by UK..., sanctioned by UK Authority..., child is also a 100% percent British subject who.. British subject... British subject... British subject... All that only matters in Britain

- Most embassy websites have information warning about that their ability to help is non-existing if a dual-citizen child enters his second home country

 

Thailand has implemented stronger controls and I must say that I personally think it is great. I stand by my assessment that the OP should be safe bringing his Thai/British child to Thailand on his British passport but that assessment goes down the drain the second immigration finds out that he also is a Thai citizen

 

"Turn it around" and it is easier to see if it still makes sense

 

A British mother has a child with me and we have shared custody but I live in Thailand with the child. We go on holiday to the UK. Has the British mother no right to stop her British child from leaving the UK again? That is not so. She certainly does

 

Thailand is the same

 

Fascinating subjects Mikey, Immigration & Family Law, ambiguous at the best of times even for the legal fraternity.

The term custody is being dropped from Family Law terminology, Primary Care, Day-to-Day-Care, Contact, Parental Responsibility are the vogue.

 

A British mother has a child with me and we have shared custody but I live in Thailand with the child. We go on holiday to the UK. Has the British mother no right to stop her British child from leaving the UK again? That is not so. She certainly does.

 

Her rights (assuming consents/orders were initially addressed upon separation/dissolution) would be dubious and doubtful in attempting to stop you leaving with the child being in your primary care, if the child is habitually resident in Thailand, and has entered the UK as a Thai national and on an official Thai Passport.

She would no doubt have to make an application to Family Court (presumably on an ex-parte basis), which should be transferred to an "on notice application" and if the history was similar to OP's in all likelihood it should fail and then she should be facing a significant costs award against her.

 

 

 

 

[blackcab]

On 24/11/2016 at 10:26 AM, Paul Catton said:

...if the child is habitually resident in Thailand, and has entered the UK as a Thai national and on an official Thai Passport.

 

That's not technically possible. UKVI will not issue a visa for the UK in a non-UK passport if they are aware the visa recipient is a British citizen.

 

Thai-UK dual nationals are required to enter the UK on their UK passport. If a Thai-UK dual national has a visa to the UK in their Thai passport then the visa application form was completed incorrectly (or UKVI got it completely wrong, which is unlikely).

Edited November 27, 2016 by blackcab

[Paul Catton]

6 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

That's not technically possible. UKVI will not issue a visa for the UK in a non-UK passport if they are aware the visa recipient is a British citizen.

 

Thai-UK dual nationals are required to enter the UK on their UK passport. If a Thai-UK dual national has a visa to the UK in their Thai passport then the visa application form was completed incorrectly (or UKVI got it completely wrong, which is unlikely).

This is assuming again that the dual citizenship has been formally adopted, registered and recognized.

 

I will repeat again, a child's 50% gene pool to either a Thai or UK citizen does not automatically confer said citizenships of either parent or even both without application.

Example, I have two nieces born in New Zealand, they reside in the sole day to day care of their father in New Zealand being a UK citizen who has a status of being a  NZ permanent resident holder.

Their Mother is a Thai citizen who also has/had a status of being a NZ permanent resident holder, (present location unknown).

The girls are New Zealand citizens and holders of NZ passports.
Both are able to travel freely with father to UK or Thailand (would be the same if mother had day to day care and ability of travel), whereby they are subject to normal entry criteria associated with their passports.

Neither are UK citizens (although they are half - British) and neither a Thai citizen (although they are half - Thai).

 

As the Op only stated "I am a single dad living in the uk and my daughter is aged 9 who is half Thai living with me in the UK also" all else is assumption.

[MikeyIdea]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 10:26 AM, Paul Catton said:

Fascinating subjects Mikey, Immigration & Family Law, ambiguous at the best of times even for the legal fraternity.

The term custody is being dropped from Family Law terminology, Primary Care, Day-to-Day-Care, Contact, Parental Responsibility are the vogue.

 

A British mother has a child with me and we have shared custody but I live in Thailand with the child. We go on holiday to the UK. Has the British mother no right to stop her British child from leaving the UK again? That is not so. She certainly does.

 

Her rights (assuming consents/orders were initially addressed upon separation/dissolution) would be dubious and doubtful in attempting to stop you leaving with the child being in your primary care, if the child is habitually resident in Thailand, and has entered the UK as a Thai national and on an official Thai Passport.

She would no doubt have to make an application to Family Court (presumably on an ex-parte basis), which should be transferred to an "on notice application" and if the history was similar to OP's in all likelihood it should fail and then she should be facing a significant costs award against her.

 

 

I don't agree with fascinating any longer. It was in the beginning but it quickly changed to just pain seeing the sometimes stupidity of the foreigner, the action of the Thai lawyer supposed to support his client or dirt throwing of a parent to gain unfair advantage. The only thing I am not disappointed in is the court itself here. They always kept priority with the child's best. I do not have that respect for Juvenile in Western countries at all

 

I went to Juvenile as an interpreter the first time to help a friend here. I was surprised about the problems he had, the case should have been quite clear. I found that the mother had used police reports which I knew myself was wrong to change the tide of the court and my friends lawyer supported the mother to get a mutual agreement because he wouldn't go against the judges of course...

 

I and the father took over and the lawyer simply sat quiet for the next 2 court sessions. It was a comic moment when the judges pushed for the agreement that the lawyer had agreed to and I and the father decided to just let them order. I said - Go on and order then. Everybody were shocked and the lawyer said "You should respect your lawyer"  Jesus how he lost face...I just said - There will be no mutual decision in this court that is not good for the child. Silence while the wind of the court changed tack and the mother was suddenly pushed hard to agree instead.

 

I went to court another 8 times in other cases and then I had enough.

1) The Brit who trusted his wife, they agreed to shared custody and divorced at the amphur and the mother had made a deal and the officer write sole custody for the mother, she brought the police and extracted the child a while later and he never saw his child again. 

2) Mothers who alienated the children and paraded them in court having them tell well rehearsed and memorized phrases

3) The fathers Thai lawyer who tried to stop him from providing video evidence proving the opposite

4) The fathers Thai lawyer who tried to stop even excellent witnesses like teachers from coming to court

5) Innocent fathers who simply were not accustomed to the evilness...

6) Stupid fathers who wouldn't listen to advice

7) The fathers Thai lawyer deliberately requesting enforcement based on nonsense instead of the childs best

 

There are many variations but the only two things that were consistent was that the foreigners lawyer would not go against the judges and the court took or thought they took decisions in the long term interest of the child

 

What you write above about habitual residence will eventually win yes (unless the mother claim abduction and the father has no evidence of a mutual agreement), but regardless of passport that child entered on, the decision is up to the court so the child will not be allowed to leave Thailand pending that decision. It is quite useless to argue with immigration

 

Mikey

Edited November 28, 2016 by MikeyIdea