Thread: Is this true? New visa rules for foreign fathers of Thai children

The London Thai Embassy doesn't appear to have changed it's web site, not that the omission of changes on the web site means a great deal.

Category "O"
To visit Thai spouse, children, parents or voluntary job.

"Non-Immigrant Type O

Birth Certificate (applicant's child)
Certificate of Marriage or its equivalents (if married to Thai national)
An official recommendation letter from organization perform voluntary job in Thailand (for volunteer job)

Neither has the Hull Consulate changed their "requirements". So far.

Has anyone actually seen or received a pukka copy of this alleged change?

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by chitown

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

Maybe he’s right, maybe there’s too many scum bags coming to Thailand or maybe he feels his culture is being eroded or changed or maybe he’s just getting old and grumpy.

Europe, the UK and the US, dish out citizenship and all sorts of visas (education, tourist) to all sorts of "scum" from around the world. So what is that all about?

To end this sort of double standard and sort it all out, the US, UK and other real countries need to mirror the immigration policy / land ownership rights etc of the country the person is applying from.

Absolutely agree.

It's a bit too much to expect developed countries to have matching, reciprocal immigration policies with developing countries. Rather than turn the discussion toward the rights and wrongs of US or UK immigration policies, I think the problem here is the way Thailand's policies, particularly in relation to marriage/family visas, discriminate against Thai nationals (the US and the UK also have something to answer for in this regard to their own nationals, albeit perhaps for different reasons than Thailand).

While the law concerning ownership of property by Thai female nationals was changed in 1998, it did not completely alleviate the discrimination against Thai women married to foreigners, because they still are required to state that the money used for property purchases did not come from the foreign spouse (aka her family member). This is a provision that obviously could cause serious trouble to the Thai spouse if at some point in the future she is required to offer definitive proof that the funds didn't come from the foreigner. It is tantamount to saying, "Go ahead and buy property, but we (the authorities) reserve the right to come back and contest the legality of your purchase if it serves our interest to do so in the future." That many or most Thais in that situation get away with offering a simple declaration is beside the point. Also, in the event of the Thai spouse's death, can her property go to the foreigner? Hardly, making the usual terms for property disposal under "wedlock" inapplicable in Thailand. In other words, the marriage of a Thai female to a foreign national is not viewed as having the same legitimacy as a Thai/Thai or Thai male/foreign female union (one might guess that is because of the prevailing view of "the kind of woman who marries a foreigner," but when it comes to equal treatment under the law that kind of prejudice should be beside the point). The above proviso does not, as far as I know, apply to the children of Thai/farang unions, and I suspect that if the rule about non-imm O visas has actually changed it is about eliminating "visiting with a Thai child" as a basis for visa application. If one is married to the mother then what is the point of applying on the basis of a relationship with the child? Only if there has been a divorce or she is dead, but apparently the question may not be the legitimacy of paternity. Maybe the genius in the Foreign Ministry who decided to change the rule hadn't really thought through the issue; nobody to answer to, anyway, except foreigners and their suspect Thai wives, so who cares?

As I pointed out in a previous post, other Asian countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as "racist, xenophobic" Japan, provide both long-term visas (not requiring stepping over the border every three months) and work permits to the spouses of their nationals. What some posters seem to fail to realize is that not doing so impinges upon the rights of the Thai nationals at least as much as it does upon the foreigner. It is the government essentially saying, "If you marry a foreign (male) person, go and live in their country, because they, despite now being members of your family, may not live here (unless they are Chinese or very wealthy)." Of course the Thai government will do what it will- it has the "right" as a sovereign government, "right" here meaning "the power to impose its will," but don't make the argument that it is not an affront against the human rights of the Thai spouse. It is incorrect to make this a farang-centric issue, since the other interested parties (family members) are Thais who want their husband/father to be with them.

To use another example from within Asia, Japan had very similar laws until about 20 years ago. The implicit assumption was that a Japanese female would go to live in her foreign husband's country (the rule did not apply to Japanese males marrying foreigners), and Japanese citizenship would not automatically be conveyed to the children of such unions. That law changed, against the wishes of the right-wing establishment, not because of pressure from foreigners, but because right-minded Japanese saw it as what it was- a sexist, racist policy. Thailand has a right, I suppose, to be as sexist and racist as it wants to until a sufficient number of Thais decide they want change, but let's call a spade a spade.

Originally Posted by alwarner

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by thegent

Huh?

Wedlock is what legitimates the birth. Without it, the child will always be illegitimate.

Not true under Thai law. Wedlock is only one way way of legitimizing a child in Thailand. A child can also be legitimized at the Amphur office once he/she is over the age of seven. A child under the age of 7 can be legitimized by a court order or by the marriage of the parents. This is all covered in Section 1555 and below of the Thai Civil and Criminal code.

I know this from direct experience. I have very recently been through the expensive and lengthy court procedure (one reason for my dearth of posts over the last few months) and now possess a certificate of paternity which gives me the legal status and the duties and responsibilities of a father and which makes the child my legitimate child.

The reason for my question is that the OP specifically mentions marriage and not legitimacy.

Do you have any more info on this?

I ask, because I read somewhere that the issue (of paternity) in some way gets clouded if the actual father did not report the birth himself? The "presumptive" father is the person who did the reporting? Sounds "off", as I am named in the birth cert, but did not do the reporting?

That is correct. Your name on the birth certificate as father is meaningless, it gives no legal standing. Many people, particularly Thais, will tell that if you are named as the father on the birth cert then you are the legal father. You are not. I have been subjected to many inaccurate lectures on this but the whole thing was clearly explained to me on the first day I went to the Juvenile Observation and Family Service Center to sign the papers to start the case. It was also explained again and again over the many subsequent meetings before the case got to the court.

The only ways to become the legal father are the methods I mentioned above.

Bob my son is 7 going on 8 (June), how would I go about legitimizing him? His mother and i are together, no plans to marry though. Although I guess in the light of this thread I might have to do that to be able to live here.

When he's 7 just go down to the Amphur office where his birth was registered. Tell them you want to legitimize him. If you have the support of your partner then you should have no problems. It will take a few weeks for the legitimation to come through. It's a painless and inexpensive procedure.

Any way how much more can Thailand be developed? They have had long enough to get it right. They are supposed to be one of the leading nations in ASEAN? although this is hard to see as their border issues with Cambodia and Burma seem to say that they are not any better than their undeveloped neighbours.

All the developed nations in the EU and America, have been making excuses for the Thai Government for years particularly the USA which has used Thailand as a special friend in the South East Asia region.Especially to the detriment of Laos,Cambodia, and Vietnam which they tried to bomb out of existence all those many years ago.

The Thai government are only ever interested in one thing. That is to ensure that they have 100% control of any person living,holidaying or stepping inside their border. And even if this system is wrong they will never loose face and tell anyone outside that it is.

Our governments at home are just as weak if not worse. They had a chance to step up to the plate when Abhisit authorized the systematic killing of the Rohingya (being towed out to sea). Again all of the western governments said absolutely nothing at all. They are not going to say anything to the Thai,s ever that is the bottom line here I am afraid.

Whilst here just remember whether you are on holiday or retirement you will be jumping through hoops for these people for the rest of your time on this planet.

Originally Posted by Happy As Larry

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Not true under Thai law. Wedlock is only one way way of legitimizing a child in Thailand. A child can also be legitimized at the Amphur office once he/she is over the age of seven. A child under the age of 7 can be legitimized by a court order or by the marriage of the parents. This is all covered in Section 1555 and below of the Thai Civil and Criminal code.

I know this from direct experience. I have very recently been through the expensive and lengthy court procedure (one reason for my dearth of posts over the last few months) and now possess a certificate of paternity which gives me the legal status and the duties and responsibilities of a father and which makes the child my legitimate child.

The reason for my question is that the OP specifically mentions marriage and not legitimacy.

Bob I would be interested in the "expensive and lengthy court procedure". I am considering such an action at the moment and was under the impression that there were 2 possibilities other than marriage.
One would be to go to the amphur with a willing mother and have the child given a certain age 7 + state that the father was his indeed his/her father. That this could be done without recourse to the courts and was inexpensive.
The alternative for a child under the age of 7 was to go to the family court with dna evidence. Again I was under the impression that this was neither too complex or expensive provided that the mother was a willing partner and that only if the mother was resistant to the idea would it prove difficult and expensive.

DNA evidence is the very last option. The courts consider it an intrusion on the childs rights and the mother, being the only one with parental powers, has the right to refuse a DNA test on her child.

This, from the Thai law code, is how I legitimized my child;

This was the basis for the petition:

(6) Where the Father had sexual intercourse with the Mother during the period when conception could have taken place, and there are grounds to believe that he or she is not the child of another man;
(7) Where there has been continuous common repute of being a legitimate child. The status resulting for common continuous repute of being a legitimate child is established by means of facts showing the relationship of Father and child, as evidenced by the child's connection with the family to which he claims to belong, such as the fact that the Father has provided the child's education and maintenance, or that he has allowed the child to use his family name or other facts.
In any case, if the man is found unable to be a father, the case shall be dismissed."

This is the procedure:

1.A petition should be given to the Court
2 A kind of social worker will examine the background of both spouses, separately, to make a report for the Court. This report is filed with what is called the 'juvenile division', it is NOT presented in front of the Court, and lawyers are normally not allowed to be present.
3.A negotiation session between the parties will be the first step in Court before a trial. It's normally done in front of a mediator and if the parties agree, this agreement will be signed by a judge and will have the same value as a judgment.
4.If parties can't agree, there is a trial in front of the judge.
5.The judge will rend a decision.
6.Rights will be registered at the local authority following an agreement or a judgment.

Both quotes from Custody of a child

My case was based on Common Repute and the mother was hostile. I had to produce a large amount of documentation showing that I had supported the child, photographs showing that my ex and I lived together as spouses, photos showing all three of us together over the course of my sons life so far, and signed statements and testimony from reliable witnesses who had known me and my ex from at least the time my son was born.

Originally Posted by OhOh

You don't need to be "retired/not working" just over 50 years of age and have either £900 per month income or £10,800 in a bank account, bond, cash etc. when you apply for the visa.

Thanks for clearing that up OO ,, so if you was on a retirement visa and got a bit fed up for example and fancied going back to the motherland to work for say 5 or 6 months then coming back it wouldn't be a prob on your next renewal ? I would have thought they would have a different interpretation of it. i.e. you was granted your last renewal on the grounds you are actually retired ? oh well more grey area I suppose.

Are you sure about the money mate ? I thought you had to have Bt 800000 which is about £17000