Prev Page 2 of 2 1 2 Please log in to reply 30 replies to this topic

[sumrit]

7by7, on 2009-11-21 18:06:42, said:

sumrit, on 2009-11-21 18:58:58, said:

I know the Embassy never used to ask for a Kor Por 14, it appears to be something they've added fairly recently.

With respect, we had to provide a custody document with my step-daughter's application, and this was in 2000.

Not sure if it was a Kor Por 14, as it was issued by a court not an ampur due to my wife's ex's intransigence.

As I understand it people have always had to show sole custody when applying for visas to take their children to the UK. If they were legally married to the childs father/mother then they would have to show the custody arrangement at the time of the divorce or subsequent court documents if they apply. That isn't a Kor Por 14. In this instant the same court papers are required for the child's passport.

If the parents weren't legally married then the mother has sole custody but no documentary proof so in order to get a passport for the child she has to get a Kor Por 14 from her local Amphur and present it to the Thai passport department with the application form.

As the Kor Por 14 is effectively a history of the child's life, where and with whom they lived etc, it appears that the British Embassy are now asking for it as part of the proof of 'day to day' responsibility, although I've not heard of them actually requesting it before this year.

I'm certainly no expert and I only add comments in these threads from my own experiences, but over the last fifteen years I've been married in Thailand twice, divorced once and, apart from my own family, I've probably helped 20-30 people apply for various visas to the UK (all successful I might add   ) and I've seen the criteria gradually change and become more strict. But apart from my friends children this year the last time I helped anybody bring and child to the UK was five years ago and the British Embassy certainly didn't ask for a Kor Por 14 then.

Edited by sumrit, 2009-11-21 20:40:03.

[7by7]

sumrit, on 2009-11-21 20:27:50, said:

As I understand it people have always had to show sole custody when applying for visas to take their children to the UK......As the Kor Por 14 is effectively a history of the child's life, where and with whom they lived etc,....

Ah, gotcha. Not being totally up to speed with Thai documents, I was mistakenly thinking that this Kor Por 14 was a custody document.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[the scouser]

7by7, on 2009-11-21 08:36:59, said:

Scouse, with respect whilst having sole custody is not by itself a requirement of the Immigration Rules, my own experience and that of others leads me to believe that the ECOs, certainly in Bangkok, do want to see a custody document of some sort...

I quite agree that in the instance of the child's parents having been married and divorced, there must be an order of custody, and that this will be a factor in the ECO's consideration. However, even being named as a custodian of the child is not conclusive, as that parent may still have abicated his/her responsibility.

Additionally, as we all know, many relationships in Thailand go unregistered, as a consequenbce of which, when they break down, there is no custody order. In lieu of this, it seems to be the belief that one must have a Por Kor 14, but it's not worth the paper it's written on.

As the UK courts have themselves found, "sole responsibility" is not a matter of being able to adduce various legal documents, but is to be decided upon all of the facts of a case, the essence of which is the question of who provides the direction and control in the child's life. Consequently, the rush to get a custody order/Por Kor 14 in the belief that it is going to prima facie establish that the named child is cared for by the named parent, is a red herring, and the OP may be better served by simply establishing his wife's direction and control in the child's life, rather than chasing round various bureaucrats trying to obtain a slip of paper.

Indeed, the OP has already commented that the court proceedings are going to be undertaken with the father's consent, and my concern would be that an ECO infers from this that the father is involved in the child's life and, therefore, the responsibility for the child is shared, rather than sole.

Scouse.

[stament]

the scouser, on 2009-11-22 05:42:35, said:

Indeed, the OP has already commented that the court proceedings are going to be undertaken with the father's consent, and my concern would be that an ECO infers from this that the father is involved in the child's life and, therefore, the responsibility for the child is shared, rather than sole.

Scouse.

Is this going to pose a problem for us then even if we get the sole custody from the court?  For info the father hasn't lived with the son since he was 2months old (and he's nearly 3 yrs old).  He has provided some financial support on an adhoc basis and has seen him probably 4 times in the last 2+ years.

[the scouser]

Possibly.

It will be open to the ECO to question the timing of the custody application and to also infer that if your wife feels obliged to seek the father's consent, it is reasonable to conclude he is still involved with the child.

Furthermore, it is imperative to understand that having sole custody is not the be-all-and-end-all of a successful child settlement visa application. To demonstrate sole responsibility is the requirement of the rules. Your wife is going to have to show that it is she alone who has provided the direction and control in the child's life. If the child has additionally spent time living with other family members, also bear in mind that case law has established that sole responsibility is not a matter to be decided only amongst the parents, but amongst all of those who have an interest in the child's upbringing. For example, the grandparents of a child for whom they had cared could be found to possess an element of responsibility, thereby meaning that the parent's responsibility was shared and not sole.

The point I'm trying to make is that the area of "sole responsibility" is not simply about getting a legal document, and Bob's-your-uncle, but can be a complicated area that hinges upon all of the given facts of a child's life.

Scouse.

[stament]

the scouser, on 2009-11-23 01:13:43, said:

Possibly.

It will be open to the ECO to question the timing of the custody application and to also infer that if your wife feels obliged to seek the father's consent, it is reasonable to conclude he is still involved with the child.

Furthermore, it is imperative to understand that having sole custody is not the be-all-and-end-all of a successful child settlement visa application. To demonstrate sole responsibility is the requirement of the rules. Your wife is going to have to show that it is she alone who has provided the direction and control in the child's life. If the child has additionally spent time living with other family members, also bear in mind that case law has established that sole responsibility is not a matter to be decided only amongst the parents, but amongst all of those who have an interest in the child's upbringing. For example, the grandparents of a child for whom they had cared could be found to possess an element of responsibility, thereby meaning that the parent's responsibility was shared and not sole.

The point I'm trying to make is that the area of "sole responsibility" is not simply about getting a legal document, and Bob's-your-uncle, but can be a complicated area that hinges upon all of the given facts of a child's life.

Scouse.

Thanks for reply.

How do I go about proving it my wife has looked after her son all this time?  Will a letter from her or from her ex-husband suffice?  The only reason we're going down the sole custody route now is because we're married and want to live in England.  If we were staying in Thailand, we wouldn't need to as ex is happy his son is being taken care of.  He also has a new family too (not that that makes a difference).

Surely this is a normal thing for people who are married to want to bring up their kids together?