Father would not give up K2

[GaryKO 49]

I do know how things work here in regards to family law. The OP acknowledged the child is illegitimate and recognized by the father on the NSO records.

I still am amazed that any man could attempt to defend what the OP is trying to do with another man's child. If it was your own child you'd be on this forum screaming until your were blue in the face that your rights as a father were going to be violated.

What makes the child illegitimate is they were not married when the child was born, when the birth was recorded if she put the fathers name on the application then he will be listed on the NSO birth cert as the child's father. She could have put your name there, or she could have left it blank. If the birth cert has the child's last name as the same as the mothers last name then the father did not acknowledge paternity. That means the father has no rights to the child what so ever, legally he is not the father.

In my experience if the man and woman are not living together at the time of the birth and have no plans to live like husband and wife with no future plans to get married the man will not acknowledge paternity. I do know of couples who are not married and have 2 or 3 kids together and live as a family because they cannot afford to get married, the custom in some parts of the Philippines is to be married only in the Catholic church, and to invite family and friends to the wedding and reception. They will wait to get married when they can afford this, in these cases the father will always acknowledge paternity on the record of birth.

Well we can't cut the baby in half, so the mother of the child is the best person to decide what is best for the child. Philippine law gives her this right. Based on the information provided by the OP, and having experience with similar situations like this, I agree with the OP that the father of the child sees this as a way to get some money in his pocket.

To the OP check the birth certificate of the child and let us know, if her last name is the same as her mother then the father has no rights to the child, not even visitation, and it would be illegal for him to be in company of the child without written permission from the mother.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Mimi and Gary

[Krikit 1,164]

Several posts violating the TOS have been removed and two members have been thread banned. There are additional posts which are highly judgmental, so if you would like to continue your participation in this thread, please post in a civil manner. There will be no further warnings. Thank you.

[Krikit 1,164]

TOTALLY inappropriate comment. The OP asked for answers to his question, not to have his fiancee belittled by ignorance.

Agreed, and there has been a warning given.

Please, everyone. No further derailment of this thread. Thank you.

[Krikit 1,164]

Additional posts removed and two more members thread-banned.

[Krikit 1,164]

Post which was quoting a removed post has been returned below.

Well again you been reading the internet and don't understand how things work there. The birth certificate form that you take to the civil registrar office has 2 sides, the front side is for the mother and fathers name, the back side is to acknowledge paternity. Both parents must sign the affidavit on the back at the civil registrar office. If this was done correctly then on the child's NSO birth cert the surname of the father will be the surname of the child. If the father did not sign the acknowledgement of paternity then the surname of the child will be the mothers surname. His name will be listed as the father on the birth cert, but the child's last name on the birth cert will be the last name of the mother.

Again the the biological fathers visitation rights are whatever the mother decides they are. If the father signed the back of the birth cert application and acknowledged paternity then he may ask the court to allow him visitation if the mother will not allow it. If he did not sign the back of the birth cert then he must prove paternity to the court, DNA is the accepted method now of doing that.

Yes it takes 2 to make a baby, they both should share in the support and care of the child.

[Juliet and Steve 93]

I was speaking specifically about Philippine law not Thai law. Someone posted the article that pertains to this in the Philippine Family code I suggest you take a look at it.

The point is that the body of law that affects the decision of the Embassy is NEITHER American NOR Philippine, nor Thai, nor Kzakastan. The point is that the American Embassy, if that is the embassy making the decision acts OUTSIDE American law and the law of the country in which the Visa is being applied for.

Perhaps you might want to go back and re-read what I wrote.

It is very, very difficult for people to understand that the Embassy acts as a Demi-God. But if you ignore this it's akin to driving straight into a concrete wall.

To understand it let's you see what options are real, not what options you might feel SHOULD be real.

People talk again and again about how one parent might have legal custody according to that country's laws, or even America law--buth the fact is the Embassy stands outside and makes its own decision with total disregard for either body of law. In Thailand even though Thai law and American law supported SOLE custody by the mother the fact is that the Embassy REQUIRED the non-custodial parent's approval--plain and simple and utterly absolute. The OP simply needs to define what the Embassy requires and I suspect that is approval of both required unless in this case the father is dead and can be proven dead.

This will sound unfair. In my opinion it's unfair. It defies fairness and common sense. Yet one's sense of fairness or one's sense of "common sense" does not necessarily relate in any way to the law that holds precedent.

This very scenario destroyed my prior relationship and there was no venue for regress by any means, not even a Federal Supreme Court case for it would never have been heard.

OP make a deal with the dad that satisfies mother father and child and you're good to go. Do not make a deal and unfortunately you're dead in the water.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Juliet and Steve

[Juliet and Steve 93]

Mothers with children going through the embassy are an every day occurence, I sure their are fathers out there with most all of them, yet most all get their visas and move forward. Nothing was required from the "fathers".

If what you say is true and you are talking about an American Embassy then the Embassy in the Philippines had made a decision that requires no approval from the 2nd birth parent. It would be nice if this could be substantiated by some hard evidence.

My experience is with the American Embassy in Thailand--there it was both parents agreed regardless of legal custody or "denied." If the Embassy in Manila runs to a different tune then the OP has a chance to do as she sees fit regardless of the birth-father.

If you could somehowe substantiate that any visa was granted without the approval of the second birth-parent then you show legal precedence.

Do consider that mothers with children go through the embassies every day--but do you know of a single one, and if so, which embassy (Danish/German/American/Canadian?) which has done it by ignoring the second birthparent?

Embassies run as demi-Gods--they decide, each on their own, their own policies and it may be in fact that some embassies do ignore the 2nd birthparent when there is no legal record of marriage. If you could substantiate your statement I'd enjoy seeing it.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Juliet and Steve

[sunandmoon 450]

If what you say is true and you are talking about an American Embassy then the Embassy in the Philippines had made a decision that requires no approval from the 2nd birth parent. It would be nice if this could be substantiated by some hard evidence.

What would you consider hard evidence?

[Caryh 5,206]

Just to add, since when did hard evidence even matter in the Philippines? People go to jail on a rumor, while others walk free with blood on one hand and the smoking gun in the other.

What would you consider hard evidence?

[elyhim 41]

kano fiance.

Speaking of offensive?

Edited December 12, 2012 by elyhim

[Grant PDX 183]

If anyone is still reading, I guess I would be hard evidence. My fiancee's son had his father's name on his birth certificate and had his father's last name. I was involved throughout the process. I sat with my fiancee in St. Lukes and went to 2 visa interviews as my step son was sick the first time around and didn't go; I also went back 2 times to talk to the CO on my own as the visa was somewhat delayed. We were asked about the birth father. My fiancee said he wasn't involved (true). No further questions were asked at any stage. I spent 6 weeks in the Philippines and flew to the US with them. Other than that one question they weren't asked by the embassy, they weren't asked in the airport, they weren't asked at POE about the father or any approval by the father.

In our situation the father hadn't been involved since the child was 2 months old, more than a year before the interview. He still isn't involved although he did sign to allow me to adopt my son 2 years after immigration. He hasn't seen his biological son in over 7 years. My son knows the name of his bio father, but little else. It's not kept from him, he just isn't involved at all.

I don't condone indiscriminately taking children away from the parent. As Artisan pointed out, I would fight tooth and nail for my kids (in fact after a divorce I have sole legal custody to both children from our relationship, both the adopted and biological son we had together) and I recently won an ugly custody battle. I would fight. I would fight for the father's rights. However, the mother has rights too, and in the Philippines those rights are the primary, if not only, factor. If my ex took our kids back to the Philippines I might never see them again, the custody decision in the US has NO bearing, I would lose my kids. Those are the mother's rights there.

This isn't an easy situation. There are two (or more) sides to the story. However, IF the mother was the primary caregiver, IF the father wasn't involved until he knew immigration was a possibility, and IF he truly only cares about the money - 3 very BIG ifs - then the OP should know that he will likely be able to remove the child from the Philippines to the US. If those if's aren't true, then I feel very sad for the child and the father.

However, to sum up, I am hard evidence of what the embassy has allowed. I am only one data point, however. YMMV

Edited December 14, 2012 by Grant PDX

[Apollo4747 0]

Hi,

I want to add my story to this one. My Fiancee` is in court right now. The K1/K2 Visa is unaffected and is independant from her custody. They are both approved.

There is one issue though. The absent father had started a custody case. Yes under 7 an illigitimate child is in the custody of the mother in the Phillipines.

Remember a hold for departure has to be cleared by the court system. Also I would suggest to have any fiancee with kids, go check this before departing. Do so a day before in case air fairs are non refundable less than 24 hours.

Right now she has both Visa's and are awaiting a court ruling. She had to go through 2 hearings and we had her lawyer file for the custody and not wait on the absent father who has never physically met the child.

Wish us Luck!

One step to go.

Trav.

[Hank_ 9,174]

You do know this topic died almost 3 years ago?

I suggest you start a new topic