| Non-motoring > Fun at immigration | Legal Questions |
| Thread Author: zippy | Replies: 22 |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 20:20
Fun at immigration - zippy
|
|
About 12 years ago my cousin and her husband did a "Madonna" and adopted two Ethiopian babies as she couldn't have children. Both are twins, one of each. The adoption was done carried out totally legally with the assistance of an international charity. They live abroad as my cousin's hubby has an astonishing well paid job with an international oil company. My elderly and very spritely aunt, who is a fantastic woman (76) jumped in the car and bundled them in and brought them over for to the UK for a couple of weeks. We had a great time and the babies have grown to very nice teenagers (just 13). Trouble happened at immigration on the way in, with evidence required that the kids were not being trafficked etc. They had all of the relevant documentation, parents permissions etc. but it took an hour of questioning in separate room before they were let in. On the trip back to the continent it was worse. Child protection officers and armed police were waiting and the kids were separated from their grandmother and each other. Aunt was on the phone desperately upset because she really thought they would take the kids away. This time they kept them questioned for six hours. The girl was the first to go stroppy, refusing to answer any questions and demanding to be given back to her grandma. Needless to say they missed the last ferry and had to find a hotel for the night at the port. Would you believe when they presented themselves at passport control the next morning the passport officer called his supervisor over and wanted to start the whole episode again! A call to her son in law elicited a call from his lawyer in London and they were let through, though no apologies whatsoever. I can understand the checks on the way in and understand the checks on the way out if they hadn't made the inward journey, but one would think that records would have been kept to indicate that all was well after the first entry and especially after the six hour exit ordeal!? Anyway, they are all safely at home now. |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 20:50
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
|
Both my children hold Chilean passports. When one is in a country, one must use the most appropriate passport for that country, consequently and obviously my Children must enter and leave Chile on their Chilean passports. No minor may leave Chile with only one parent unless that parent is carrying a recent (28 days I think) witnessed and notarised permission from the other parent to do so. If neither parent is present than the responsible adult must be carrying to witnessed and notarised permissions to travel, ne from each parent. It is an absolute, there are no exceptions, a call from a lawyer would not make the difference here, and I am surprised that it did in the UK. and if you do not have a reasonable explanation then you may be detained. There are, as far as I am aware, no restrictions upon entry. Strangely though, there seem to be little or no restrictions on taking a child out of Chile if they hold a foreign passport. Not recently, but in past years I have travelled with them on their British passports and there has not even been a raised eyebrow. It may well depend on where you are going to. The other gotcha is worse. If you take a minor into the country they were born, for example I take 1 child to Brazil, that child may not leave with anything other than her Brazilian passport. And if she doesn't have one, then she cannot leave. Whoever she is with and whatever permissions are held. - it's the "Place of Birth" which gives it away. You might want to warn your cousin of that in case they ever choose to take the children back to their country of birth for a visit. |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 21:24
Fun at immigration - zippy
|
|
All correct paperwork was held and presented and was anticipated before travel so was checked by a lawyer in their country of residence before travel and with the consulate. I understand and aunt understands why immigration did what they did, people trafficking is truly awful. What grinds is that they checked once on the way in and took hours on the way out as well and then on the second attempt to leave also tried to stop them, the solicitor just reminded them that the correct paperwork has been presented and that they had already been questioned. |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 21:46
Fun at immigration - zippy
|
|
>>You might want to warn your cousin of that in case they ever choose to take the children back >>to their country of birth for a visit. Thanks, the kids have acknowledged that they want to go back at some point to retrace their history. |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 13:11
Fun at immigration - movilogo
|
|
>> the kids have acknowledged that they want to go back at some point to retrace their history. Most adopted kids do that when they grow up - in real lives as well as in movies. Just last week watched a good movie on same topic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_(2016_film) |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 22:15
Fun at immigration - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> No minor may leave Chile with only one parent unless that parent is carrying a >> recent (28 days I think) witnessed and notarised permission from the other parent to do >> so. >> >> If neither parent is present than the responsible adult must be carrying to witnessed and >> notarised permissions to travel, ne from each parent. >> >> It is an absolute, there are no exceptions, a call from a lawyer would not >> make the difference here, and I am surprised that it did in the UK. How does the bit I've bolded work if parents are separated? In UK both parents, including since 2003 unmarried fathers who jointly registered the birth, have parental responsibility. In simple terms, unless the courts are involved, the parents are allowed, jointly or severally, to make decisions about their kids including taking them abroad*. I'd say that separation>children ranks equally with separation>money/property in terms of frequency with which they turn up as advice issues in my work. Unfortunately 'weaponising' the kids is all too common when relationships falter. I'd suspect that Chile's culture is different and that given distances economics etc then taking children abroad is much less common than in UK. Not remotely surprised that getting a lawyer involved made a difference. The 'judge over your shoulder' (ie the prospect of judicial review) has made UK civil servants think again or run upstairs with a case they'd otherwise 'wing' has been a factor for 20+ years. And that's no bad thing. * I've read recently that questions are increasingly asked if kid's surnames are different from those of parent they're travelling with. Ironically that would have left me, an unmarried parent of kids born pre 2003 who although named on birth certificates had no parental responsibility unless agreed or ordered by a court, with less trouble taking them abroad than their Mother. |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 23:06
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
|
>>How does the bit I've bolded work if parents are separated? If one or more is dead it is reasonably easy. If however they are separated and one of them is being bloody minded then it is an absolute nightmare. Essentially you have to go to court, full hearing with lawyers, stand in front of the judge and explain why you should be allowed to travel and that you will bring the children back. If you are trying to emigrate, you're screwed. If you are the Father, you're probably screwed. If you are a Foreigner married to a Chileno/a, you're almost certainly screwed. Any difference is not so much a matter of culture as geography. There's not much in the way of short haul down this way. >>Not remotely surprised that getting a lawyer involved made a difference It was a phone call, how did they know he was a lawyer? It may not be surprising, but it should have been the case. There's a compulsory process or there isn't. A phone call from someone who may or may not be a lawyer should not make the difference. >>I've read recently that questions are increasingly asked if kid's surnames are different from those of parent Different here. The child's name is always different to the parents'. Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 11 Sep 19 at 10:31
|
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 23:33
Fun at immigration - henry k
|
|
>>I've read recently that questions are increasingly asked if kid's surnames are different from those of parent My daughter in law recently got a new passport in her married name just to avoid such aggro. She had a Chinese surname that was of course quite different from my sons traditional English surname plus my grandson has not inherited his Dads appearance. All now sorted, I hope. |
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 23:35
Fun at immigration - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It was a phone call, how did they know he was a lawyer? If someone says he's Simon Brompton from Brompton, Raleigh and Dawes Solicitors he'd expect, in UK, to be believed. The Solicitors' roll is publicly available via the Law Society's website and a firm's bona fides are easily confirmed. If somebody's trying it on and pretending to be a lawyer then I'm pretty sure an experienced UK immigration officer would have a clue; there are linguistic and other tics that would give game away. >> It may not be surprising, but it should have been the case. There's a compulsory process or >> there isn't. A phone call from someone who may or may not be a lawyer >> should not make the difference. While compulsory processes are attractive to law makers they're not easily framed in ways that fit with life as it's lived by real people in UK. May be different in other cultures. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 28 Aug 18 at 23:39
|
|
New Tue 28 Aug 18 23:43
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
|
>>>> It was a phone call, how did they know he was a lawyer? >>If someone says he's Simon Brompton from Brompton, Raleigh and Dawes Solicitors he'd >>expect, in UK, to be believed. The Solicitors' roll is publicly available via the Law Society's >>website and a firm's bona fides are easily confirmed. If somebody's trying it on and pretending >>to be a lawyer then I'm pretty sure an experienced UK immigration officer would have a clue; >>there are linguistic and other tics that would give game away. What utter tosh. You argument seems to be "because he said he was". Really, sometimes you just need to let the bone drop. Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 28 Aug 18 at 23:44
|
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 00:19
Fun at immigration - zippy
|
|
>>Lawyer. The lawyer didn't persuade them to do anything they weren't supposed to do anyway, just to remind them that the family had gone through the same exit process the day before, as my aunt wasn't being listened to. I guess they just took it on spec that he was a lawyer but of course they could have called his firm to check - I wasn't there. Reading my first post - noticed loads of typos and some really bad grammar. I have had a long day at work, including having to sit an exam, well that's my excuse anyway. |
|
New Thu 30 Aug 18 10:40
Fun at immigration - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> What utter tosh. You argument seems to be "because he said he was". I'm not getting in a lengthy argument about it but unless there's reason to disbelieve that's more or less it. In 35 years in the Ministry of Justice and it's predecessors I had thousands of conversations with hundreds of solicitors. A solicitor is an officer of the court and is entitled to be taken at his word. On perhaps one or two occasions I thought I thought something 'odd' and found a pretext to get a number to call them back. This was before direct dial and you'd expect get a receptionist who'd put you through to the solicitor himself. Nowadays you can check their professional status on line as you speak to them. If there are areas of the law where impersonation is a problem then other precautions can be put in place. I mentioned language, tics etc; lawyers speaking to professionals have a certain way of speaking. The vast majority approach a conversation as outlined in Zippy's account professionally setting out the facts, the law if needed and what they think you need to do. There are of course exceptions of which Liverpool's Rex Makin was the standout example; the rudest lawyer in England. What's somebody pretending to be a lawyer going to say that makes a difference? I've had one bailiff ask how he knows I'm really a CA adviser. I suggested he listen to what I had to say and took a view..... >> Really, sometimes you just need to let the bone drop. Sometimes you need to take your own advice. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 30 Aug 18 at 10:44
|
|
New Thu 30 Aug 18 11:24
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
| Dear God, let it go. |
|
New Thu 30 Aug 18 13:26
Fun at immigration - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Dear God, let it go. Last word: You asked a question. OK, perhaps it was rhetorical but you got a considered answer. With characteristic rudeness you described it as utter tosh and think that can stand. As helicopter put it last week: You consider yourself above criticism...and better than those that you consider below you in status on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. |
|
New Thu 30 Aug 18 14:30
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
| FFS. Let. It. Go. |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 08:43
Fun at immigration - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> there are linguistic and other tics that would give game away. >> You mean despite all the efforts to widen social and ethnic diversity in the legal profession, you would still expect a solicitor to sound like a proper Englishman who'd been to a good school and a real university? I'm a bit surprised that our resident liberal believes that. :) |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 17:58
Fun at immigration - Mapmaker
|
|
>>You mean despite all the efforts to widen social and ethnic diversity in the legal profession The only profession where you still need to buy your way in to your articles. (Effectively, and not always, but you so often do.) |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 02:34
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
|
Thinking about it I am amazed they were able to question the children at all., never mind separately. If they really did treat the children like that for that period of time I think I would be making waves. Big ones. |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 07:42
Fun at immigration - jc2
|
| My elder daughter took one of my younger daughter's children on a trip to the states and other places-to be safe she got a note from the younger giving permission.It was asked for once-at H/Row on return! |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 08:15
Fun at immigration - commerdriver
|
|
Similar for us, on the way back from Son's wedding in Antigua, we came through immigration / passport control at Gatwick with his 3 year old son and our grown up daughter. Son and wife had gone through the fast path with in laws and rest of party. Passport guy never questioned whether the child was with his mother or father, I guess the fact that all surnames were the same was the key. |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 22:52
Fun at immigration - Mike H
|
| I took our lad on a trip to France, travelling by car ferry, for a few days some years ago - c.2000? - while my wife/his mother was away on a skiing trip with the school, and we were very briefly interrogated to make sure I wasn't abducting him. Bit unnerving at the time, but best to check I suppose. They let us through after a couple of questions, IIRC they asked him if he was going voluntarily. Slightly amusing, as the whole trip was his idea! |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 09:21
Fun at immigration - zippy
|
|
>>Thinking about it I am amazed they were able to question the children at all., never mind separately. Why? They wanted to establish that the children were not being trafficked. Who best to ask but the children in that situation. Bluntly, they were being stopped because aunt is white and the children are black so very unlikely to be genetic relatives and the names on the passports were different. No malice, I am sure I would want to know that they were not being trafficked as well. The issue is the repeated checks due to poor processes. |
|
New Wed 29 Aug 18 10:19
Fun at immigration - No FM2R
|
|
>>Why? They wanted to establish that the children were not being trafficked. Who best to ask but the children in that situation. Reading back perhaps I misunderstood,/ misread, but I thought the children were separated and questioned for 6 hours. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
