help for my friend please

[DARUMA07 25]

I hardly ever step into any conversations in this forum, mostly because the stories told here are often heartbreaking. This, too, is one of those stories. But I cannot stand by while people continue to advocate imprudent and potentially illegal activity. International child abduction is at stake here. The child is a USC, born of a USC father who like it or not has parental rights in the US. That includes the right NOT to have his child removed without his permission from the US. The term "drug addict" keeps getting bandied about as if it is the gospel truth about the father -- all we know is what we have been told, which is that the father is a drug USER. Furthermore, since we have only one side of the story (and that in itself is secondhand) we do not know if that is true. Whoever posted that the mother should plant drug evidence in the attempt to bolster a heretofore non-existent claim of spousal abuse... wow.

What is morally correct and what is legally correct do not always intersect. Just because something seems "right" to you doesn't make it so. The best advice given in this thread so far is this: seek legal counsel. This is an emotionally fraught, legally complex situation. Advice is better sought from a lawyer than your peers. I wish the best for the OP's friend and her child and hope that they can achieve resolution to this tragic state of affairs.

You hit the nail on the head!!!!

[DEDixon 39]

Sorry, it makes no difference if she sorts it out after the fact. It is still abduction. Yes, she has a pressing immigration issue. It does not mean she should ignore the family law aspects of this matter. Get both sorted out ASAP.

sorry, but "if" what the OP says is true about the husband, it doesn't appear he would be willing to settle this quickly. it actually appears he is using the kid to keep her close by.

again, if all is true in the OP, the guy has a GF, he won't marry the woman he petitioned, he mentions pre-nup agreement too. if OP has been honest, he doesn't seem to be a guy that will let her go without a long fight.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

We do not have the luxury of knowing the story from the horse's mouth -- the OP is telling us secondhand. I want to make it clear I think the father sounds like a scumbag. But scumbags have legal rights, and she needs to cover her ####### if she wants to remove this child from the US (which to me seems not unreasonable if what we have been told is true). Best way to do this -- talk to a lawyer. There may be a solution to this that has not even been dreamt up here on this thread. My own training in family law and child abduction amounted to two days; since I was training to be a corporate lawyer in England, we did the bare minimum required by the Law Society in this area. What I do recall is this, and even though it was English law, much is similar between that jurisdiction and the US: removing a child like this is opening up a big can of worms. Get advice. Catholic Charities is a great place to start.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

In the PHILIPPINES, the MOTHER has FULL CUSTODY of the CHILD until a certain age... THE MOTHER HAS FULL CUSTODY OF THE BABY, MARRIED OR NOT MARRIED!

She buy a ticket and hop in the plane. He could fight with custody later..

THE WOMAN IS AT A LOSING BATTLE HERE IF SHE OVERSTAY!

While she is still LEGAL... she should do something.

I dont give BS to the drug addict fiance. If you want the girl to grew up with a drug addict man...there is something WRONG here.

Irrelevant. She's not in the Philippines. She's in the US. Once she arrived on US soil she became subject to US laws. Paternity was established when the CRBA was granted, and the father has rights under US law. Whether or not an international abduction has taken place is determined according to the laws of the country the child is taken FROM, not the laws of the country the child is taken TO. Since the RP is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, she wouldn't get into any trouble in the Philippines. The US, however, IS a signatory to the convention, and marriage is not required in the US in order to establish parental rights. If she takes the child out of the US without the father's consent (or permission from a court), she's guilty of international child abduction according to the terms of the convention.

[DEDixon 39]

Irrelevant. She's not in the Philippines. She's in the US. Once she arrived on US soil she became subject to US laws. Paternity was established when the CRBA was granted, and the father has rights under US law. Whether or not an international abduction has taken place is determined according to the laws of the country the child is taken FROM, not the laws of the country the child is taken TO. Since the RP is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, she wouldn't get into any trouble in the Philippines. The US, however, IS a signatory to the convention, and marriage is not required in the US in order to establish parental rights. If she takes the child out of the US without the father's consent (or permission from a court), she's guilty of international child abduction according to the terms of the convention.

i thought in the US we were innocent until proven guilty?

you don't' even know if she would ever be charged. being charged is very unlikely as long as she remains out of the US, but even if she returns to the US at any point, as long as she cooperates with the father and authorities (if they get involved), she would not be charged. they don't charge people who act in the best interest of their children and if the statement about drugs is true and she can prove it, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

girl, get on a plane and go....

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

i thought in the US we were innocent until proven guilty?

you don't' even know if she would ever be charged. being charged is very unlikely as long as she remains out of the US, but even if she returns to the US at any point, as long as she cooperates with the father and authorities (if they get involved), she would not be charged. they don't charge people who act in the best interest of their children and if the statement about drugs is true and she can prove it, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

girl, get on a plane and go....

The correct axiom is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", which is precisely how the courts are supposed to treat you. If you are, in fact, guilty, then you were guilty from the moment you committed the crime.

I thought I was clear. She would NOT be charged in the RP. What she had done would not be illegal in the RP. It would, however, be illegal in the US. Whether she would be charged if she returned to the US would depend on whether the child's father chose to report her actions.

People are charged with crimes every day for actions with they honestly believed were in the best interest of their children. There are almost always alternatives which are equal or better, in terms of the interest of the child, and which are not illegal. There is no way a US court would determine that parental abduction was excusable just because the abducting parent thought it was in the best interest of the child. Every parent who has ever been convicted of parental abduction probably believed what they were doing was in the best interests of the child. In this case, if she honestly believed the father was a danger to the child, then she could report the father to the police, and seek help in a shelter for abused women. The courts could also take custody of the child. But, they would never sanction kidnapping as a viable solution.

Courts do NOT revoke the parental rights of a father just because he is a drug user, though they may order supervised visitation if they believe the child could be in danger. Even convicted murderers still retain their parental rights.

[Ontarkie 14,225]

I haven't read some of the more recent post but I wanted to ask since they have not file for AOS/or got married is she allowed to file on her own for abuse?

Here's why I ask. This guy has a girl on the side before she came from PI. He gets his fiance here knowing full well he doesn't want to be a husband to her, and that once his child is on US soil she can't go back without his consent. He manipulated his fiance, entrapping her here where he thinks she has no power over him. That is control he is abusing his power as a USC to control her. He knows full well that she can't stay in the US without him. He tells her marry me anyways and you can stay in the house and take care of the baby, but I want to mess around like a single guy. Power and manipulation is abuse. The prenup means more power over her in this situation so if she doesn't do what he wants she gets nothing.

She really needs to get a lawyer this will only get worse, make sure she knows also that if they get married and files for AOS like he wants too that no prenup will get him off the the hook for the affidavit of support. That being pointed out may be enough to let her go.

There is so many types of abuse and physical just being the easiest to see makes the other types seem less real but they are, and this is abuse.

I wish your friend the best and hope she can get things settle soon.

[DEDixon 39]

The correct axiom is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", which is precisely how the courts are supposed to treat you. If you are, in fact, guilty, then you were guilty from the moment you committed the crime.

I thought I was clear. She would NOT be charged in the RP. What she had done would not be illegal in the RP. It would, however, be illegal in the US. Whether she would be charged if she returned to the US would depend on whether the child's father chose to report her actions.

People are charged with crimes every day for actions with they honestly believed were in the best interest of their children. There are almost always alternatives which are equal or better, in terms of the interest of the child, and which are not illegal. There is no way a US court would determine that parental abduction was excusable just because the abducting parent thought it was in the best interest of the child. Every parent who has ever been convicted of parental abduction probably believed what they were doing was in the best interests of the child. In this case, if she honestly believed the father was a danger to the child, then she could report the father to the police, and seek help in a shelter for abused women. The courts could also take custody of the child. But, they would never sanction kidnapping as a viable solution.

Courts do NOT revoke the parental rights of a father just because he is a drug user, though they may order supervised visitation if they believe the child could be in danger. Even convicted murderers still retain their parental rights.

you continue to react purely without any of emotional or humanitarian considerations. add in the emotional and the humanitarian considerations and you are way off base here. administrating law is not computer driven and no robots are involved either.

she would not be charged by any authority let alone convicted of anything as long as she is willing to cooperate at a later date. with the advice of an attorney, she would have a ton of reasons for securing her child who she is now primary care giver (she can't work in the US so she must be caring for her child all day, all night). with those reasons, no authority is going to charge her with anything AS LONG AS SHE IS WILLING TO COOPERATE LATER. you continue to say that the act of leaving with her child will in and of itself break the law, not true! after she says she is willing to cooperate with the father and after she explains why she left, no authority in the world will bother with spending money and time to add even more drama to this story. people have more important things to do.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I know Jim and I will never convince you that this is a bad idea. I said it before, but seriously: what we feel is right is not always what is right legally. We all know the law is an a$$; that does not mean we can ignore it.

she would not be charged by any authority let alone convicted of anything as long as she is willing to cooperate at a later date. with the advice of an attorney, she would have a ton of reasons for securing her child who she is now primary care giver (she can't work in the US so she must be caring for her child all day, all night). with those reasons, no authority is going to charge her with anything AS LONG AS SHE IS WILLING TO COOPERATE LATER. you continue to say that the act of leaving with her child will in and of itself break the law, not true! after she says she is willing to cooperate with the father and after she explains why she left, no authority in the world will bother with spending money and time to add even more drama to this story. people have more important things to do.

Really? Can you point out some precedents in this area? Are these statements backed up with case or black letter law, or do they come from your gut?

Edit to amend a bleeped out word -- a synonym for donkey.

Edited January 21, 2010 by elmcitymaven

[mox 298]

i thought in the US we were innocent until proven guilty?

you don't' even know if she would ever be charged. being charged is very unlikely as long as she remains out of the US, but even if she returns to the US at any point, as long as she cooperates with the father and authorities (if they get involved), she would not be charged. they don't charge people who act in the best interest of their children and if the statement about drugs is true and she can prove it, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

girl, get on a plane and go....

Pretty sure advocating illegal acts such as FSCKING CHILD ABDUCTION!!!! is against the TOS. "Commit the crime now and get a good lawyer later" isn't even bad advice. It is, in fact, an insult to bad advice. This is horrible fscking advice and the OP would do well to ignore you completely.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

thread closed for review

After reviewing this thread it will remain closed for TOS violation - repeatedly recommending illegal activity.

The best advice as been given - the OP's friend needs to seek knowledgeable legal counsel who can help her obtain/determine custody of the dual citizen US/Philippines child while in the US in order to prevent her committing an illegal act and still representing the best interests of the child and the mother.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Kathryn41