Trayla

They were but it expired in October whilst they were in the UK. I had to put them as dependents not migrating at the time of my application for PR.

Gill Palmer

1. Why did you do have to put them down as dependents not migrating with you?

2. Do you have a registered Migration Agent acting for you?

3. If not, have you e-mailed whichever DIMIA office you should be dealing with, (ie the one dealing with whatever sort of visa you yourself hold) to explain the situation conerning the children and ask for their help?

4. Since the children are in the UK, look on the website for the Australian High Commission in London. It you hunt around on the AHC site, you will fond that you can e-mail your queries to First Enquiries
E-mail Address(es):
[email protected]

However, they (FE) will ONLY reply to enquiries about visas that are handled in London. ETAs are not, but you could apply for a 12 month s-c 676 visa for the children, I would guess (but I am only guessing.) First Enquiries should be able to help via-a-vis the children, I should think.

With children, the gist seems to be that if you have a Court Order in your own favour, granted by the Court either in the UK or Australia, it ought to be possible for you to take them to Australia, from what I've read on this thread. If in doubt though, don't guess but ask DIMIA instead, I suggest.

Hope this helps

Gill

WESTLY

IARC do not charge fees

Trayla

[QUOTE=Gill Palmer]1. Why did you do have to put them down as dependents not migrating with you?

Hi Gill,

As I was applying for an onshore visa the children had to be in OZ with me for me to include them in my application as migrating with me.

I have spoken to my CO and at the moment he is primarily concerned with my application. I am still outstanding the kids health checks as my ex wont co-operate.

My CO says that he will show the evidence to his Manager and hopefully he will be able to proceed with his decision on my application. He also says we can worry about the health checks at a later date.

I am mainly worried about getting the kids ETA visas and then PR if I have brough them to Oz on ETA's.

Tracey

Gill Palmer

[QUOTE=Trayla] Dear Tracey

In your shoes, I would be worried as well. I haven't a clue whether it would be OK to take the kids out on ETAs and then to try to do something whilst they are there.

I suggest that you ask your question again, by starting a new thread. Explain the whole situation clearly and ask whether anyone can help, I suggest.

I suspect that the lack of a response so far is because Manglu's problem is not the same as your own, people have read his thread, got bored with it and haven't followed it through far enough to pick up on your trailing query as well.

I think that if you start a thread of your own, it might encourage Welsh Tony to step in and help. If not, then I suggest you consult a registered Migration Agent for advice. Make sure it is one who is familiar with cases where there is a Court Order but a reluctant ex in spite of it and so forth.

Sorry I can't offer anything more concrete, but I really don't know enough to help you (and I'm not a Migration Agent anyway.)

Good luck, though.

Gill

JAJ

I think there is confusion here. Who has custody/parental rights over the children - you or your ex?

If it's you, then how come your "ex" is able to object to them doing medicals. And if your "ex" has custody, then you won't solve anything by bringing them to Australia on an ETA.

ETAs are only for those planning to *visit* Australia, not move to Australia. If you want to sponsor for a child visa, then the application should be done at the Australian High Commission in London. But the children will need medicals and your "ex" will need to consent if he has parental rights, regardless. Or you'll need a court order.


Jeremy

Trayla

[QUOTE=Gill Palmer] Thanks for your help Gill

Gill Palmer

JAJ

She has a Court Order, it seems, if you look at Trayla's first post. I've no idea what the Hague Convention agreed, but apparently the relevant Order was granted pursuant to that.

The problem seems to be that Trayla has been unable to add the children to her own application because hers was an on-shore application, made at a time when the children were offshore in the UK or something.

It sounds to me as if the DIMIA Procedures don't really cater for the unusual set of facts in this case. As you will see from her earlier posts, Trayla's own CO seems sympathetic and is trying to do everything that he can to help, from his own end of things, but would a guy dealing with one particular type of visa also understand the workings of other types of visa (eg ETAs) in relation to which he may have had no formal training at all?

Seems to me that the real solution here lies in getting the tourist-visa staff to liaise with the staff dealing with Trayla's main application for PR, and for them all to agree in advance to some sort of tourist-visa to get the children out to Australia, so that an on-shore application can be made on their behalves once they are there.

What about a paper s-c676 for 12 months MINUS Condition 8503 and anything else that might prevent an on-shore application for the children, to clear the path for an onshore PR application to be made (perhaps adding them to Trayla' main application?) Could that then be followed by a Bridging Visa for the children, to keep them lawful and so forth?

As for Hubby's reluctance to co-operate with medicals for the kids, they wouldn't need medicals for an s-c 676. Once they are in Australia and Hubby cannot make further waves about it, the medicals would be done by whichever on-shore doctors do medicals for on-shore applicants, surely?

The idea is to try to find a way of making the whole thing dovetail, hang together and work, not just to look for ways of shooting the poor lass down in flames, I suggest.

I reckon Welsh Tony would be a big help on this one. He is good at isolating the salient facts and then constructing a coherent whole from them, which is what is really missing from this thread at the minute.

Gill

Trayla

Jeremy,

We have joint parental responsibilty.

I am in Oz, hubby has the kids in the UK, he abducted them to the UK in Dec 04.

The high court london upon instruction from the Australian Central Authority, Attourney Generals Deprtment has just granted a return order for the children to be returned to Aus, as they were habitual residents of Aus.

I am on a bridging visa in OZ waiting for my onshore Graduate skilled visa.

Hubby's and kids student dependent visa's expired oct 05. Therefore they do not have visa's for Aus

The kids were in the UK when I applied for PR so I was not allowed to put the kids on the visa.

I have to collect the kids from the UK, hubby is not coming to OZ.

If my PR is not granted then i will get a bridging visa B so that I can return to OZ. So my visa is fine.

The order is for the immediate return of the children.

I am just wondering how immigration would view the court order.

Would immigration honour the UK court order which is an instruction from the Australian Central Authority, Attourney Generals Deprtment, and let the kids enter australia on a vistors visa when is clear that they are returning to live permanently?

I know this is a complex and possibly unique situation, but the discussion is vey helpful and informative.

Thanks for your input,

Tracey

JAJ

Clearer now.

DIMA will normally honour a UK court order regarding child custody, however you'd need professional advice to know if the court order given is enough for permanent migration. You may need a supplementary order from the Australian courts.

Regards the children returning on an ETA, it's bending the rules if they intend to stay longer and they arrive with one, however DIMA may be sympathetic in the circumstances. Impossible to say in advance, you'll just need a sympathetic immigration officer at the airport.

To get an ETA: http://www.eta.immi.gov.au

ETAs do not carry condition 8503, so once your PR is granted you will be able to lodge an immediate child visa application onshore. Be careful about renewing their 3 month stay online in Australia, this does carry the risk of condition 8503. Do any renewals in person, not online.


If you want to leave Australia you should get a Bridging Visa B if you want to travel. This must be done before you depart and you must return while the BVB is valid.

You should talk this through with IARC: http://www.iarc.asn.au


Jeremy

Trayla

Thats so reasuring.

Thanks for your help,

JAJ

A further issue to check is that if you want to bring children to Australia on ETAs and they only have a one-way ticket, make sure from the airline (in writing) that they will be allowed to check-in.

There is no legal requirement I am aware of for ETA holders to have a return ticket, however not all airline staff understand this.

Otherwise just buy a return ticket for them (it may not be much more expensive anyway).

You may want to arrange for a good migration agent to be present (or at least contactable) when you + children arrive at the airport, just in case there are problems. And do talk things through with a professional in advance.


Jeremy

Gill Palmer

Dear Tracey

Good onya, lass! You have now come up with a clear, succinct description of the exact problem, so now the rest of us can help you to find a solution.

To clear up a preliminary point, your own situation has nothing whatsoever in common with Manglu's. There can be difficulties with getting tourist-visas for people from his neck of the woods. Those difficulties would not be likely to arise in your case, because you have Australian and English Law solidly behind you in the question of what is best for your children, and both jurisdictions are in no doubt that Australia is the best place for your kids. So rest easy on that score, my love.

The issue here, as I see it, is actually only the mechanics of getting the children back to Australia initially, on a visa that will not prevent an on-shore application being made for them once they are there.

The mechanics will take a bit of unravelling and sorting (but dear God! If any one is good at that, YOU are, my girl, because these cases where kids get dragged overseas by a disgruntled parent are a nightmare to sort out, as you know.)

My own instinct is that ETAs are not the solution but Welsh Tony, who I reckon is first-rate, says otherwise on a different thread, and he might well be right. I think he is prepared to take a more robust line than I myself would dare to. I have sent Tony an e-mail with a link back to this thread and a request for him to consider whether he feels able to help. He is a really nice guy, very clear-headed, and he also seems like an exceptionally kind man, so I think that he will help if he can spare time. His help is free, so one cannot demand it, but I have made a respectful request for you, so let us now wait and hope.....

Meanwhile, my idea: a 12 month sub-class 676 tourist-visa for the children. In many ways, this is the nearest thing to a flexi-visa. Strictly, that is a contradiction in terms, but what I mean is that with a 12-month 676, you can more or less agree the reasons for it, and the game-plan for it, with DIMIA in advance of making the actual application. You can send letters and documents in support of the application, and you can explain why you would need them NOT to impose certain conditions. You can also copy your main CO in on everything you send to London and vice versa, so that the staff at both ends are clear about what is happening etc etc. (And if anyone tells me that DIMIA offices are not in direct contact with each other behind the scenes when they choose, then I'll show you a Dreamer, my child!!)

A 12 month 676 would cost you £35 per child. An ETA for them would cost you a tenner apiece. Big deal. What did the International Court Order cost?! I rest my case on the costs-issue, lass! The children would not need medicals for the 676 either. Once they are in Australia, I feel sure that the doctors who deal with all the other on-shore applicants could sort out the medicals, so your CO is right and those can be done later.

My instinct is that this is the first step to getting the children back out to Australia, and that the rest can be done once they are there.

I shall now stand back for a while, to give others a chance to step in and help. DO NOTHING in haste. Let us get a proper game-plan organised. Then let us run it past DIMIA, to make sure they can't see any flaws that the rest of us may not have spotted. Then and only then start the formal ball rolling.

Sit tight, honey. It will take a few more days, but I can smell a coherent solution beginning to emerge from the discussion tonight. After everything you have been through, you know that these things take time.

Sleep well, and we'll talk again on the morrow.

Love

Gill

Gill Palmer

Tracey

I've just read Jeremy's further contributions. The ETA idea gives me the jitters, personally, but he and Tony both say the same, so I think we can conclude that I'm probably being a wimp!

He is right about the airlines as well.

You can trust Jeremy's advice, and the purpose of this further post is simply to endorse what he has said, in order to reassure you.

Nite both

Gill

JAJ

Quite a few international conventions have been signed in The Hague, but this is the one in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_C...hild_Abduction

The Wikipedia article is still in its early stages but gives some links to other resources.

One of the fundamental principles of the Convention is that the courts in the country of 'habitual residence' of the child should be the ones to determine child custody disputes.

As far as immigration law is concerned, this is why DIMA will not normally issue a migration visa to a child without being assured that the law of the child's *home* country is observed.

It is important to be aware that the Convention applies even if the child doesn't need an immigration visa, eg the fact that the child is an Australian citizen does not give parents an automatic right to remove that child from another Hague Convention country (to Australia) if it would be contrary to custody/access rights another parent has under local law.


Jeremy