Hi everyone

[quickwillow]

Yeah makes me sick too they already live very comfortably there, as far a how many people know a whitey is involved it’s just the attorney. I think he was playing the nice guy when he said it was better not to say I was involved or just greedy, anyway I don't trust them in the Philippines or here.
Can I ask you Iain how long after the annulment decision was made did you wait to receive the paper work, I read after 15 days but the judge said 3 months what do you think? What should we expect to receive and were the your kids mentioned on this as to who has custody?

[IainBusby]

Yeah makes me sick too they already live very comfortably there, as far a how many people know a whitey is involved it’s just the attorney. I think he was playing the nice guy when he said it was better not to say I was involved or just greedy, anyway I don't trust them in the Philippines or here.
Can I ask you Iain how long after the annulment decision was made did you wait to receive the paper work, I read after 15 days but the judge said 3 months what do you think? What should we expect to receive and were the your kids mentioned on this as to who has custody?

We didn't go down the annulment route, we opted for presumptive death instead because it's much faster and much cheaper than annulment. My wife's was all done and dusted in about 7 months and cost about £1200, plus 2 or 3 additional payments of about P5000 that her attorney dreamed up along the way.

Even when the whole legal process was complete, we still had to pay another bung, about P2,500, to get the clerk of the court to release the papers.

As far as kids are concerned, I don't think that they or their custody plays any part in a Philippines annulment.

Iain.

[joebloggs]

What is the general rule as to custody over children?

The general rule is that a child under seven years of age shall not be separated from his mother, which is based on the basic need of a child for his mother’s loving care. Article 213 of the Family Code provides that “[n]o child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.” This is more pronounced in case of illegitimate children, as the law expressly provides that illegitimate children shall be under the parental authority of their mother.

Is this rule absolute?

This rule is not absolute. Even a mother may be deprived of the custody of her child who is below seven years of age for “compelling reasons.” Instances of unsuitability are neglect, abandonment, unemployment and immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable illness. Negligent and careless failure to perform the duties of parenthood is a significant element of abandonment, regardless of actual intention. A strong basis for a finding of the parent’s abandonment of his or her child is found in the case where the parent has left the child permanently or indefinitely in the care of others, given it to another, or surrendered it entirely.

custody and 'sole responsibility' are not always the same thing, you can have custody of a child but the British embassy might say you don't have 'sole responsibility' for example the mother might have custody but work, say in H/K and the child is looked after by the father, her mother or sister, if so its possible that the embassy might say the mother doesn't have 'sole responsibility'.

but really the only problem people face, is, if the child still lives with the father or has a lot of contact with the father (i suppose with his approval their shouldn't be a problem) or if the mother works in another country and the child has been looked after by someone else for a long time. but even then i would have thought most of these cases could be won on appeal.

so in most cases there shouldn't be a problem with 'sole responsibility'

[quickwillow]

What is the general rule as to custody over children?

The general rule is that a child under seven years of age shall not be separated from his mother, which is based on the basic need of a child for his mother’s loving care. Article 213 of the Family Code provides that “[n]o child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.” This is more pronounced in case of illegitimate children, as the law expressly provides that illegitimate children shall be under the parental authority of their mother.

Is this rule absolute?

This rule is not absolute. Even a mother may be deprived of the custody of her child who is below seven years of age for “compelling reasons.” Instances of unsuitability are neglect, abandonment, unemployment and immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable illness. Negligent and careless failure to perform the duties of parenthood is a significant element of abandonment, regardless of actual intention. A strong basis for a finding of the parent’s abandonment of his or her child is found in the case where the parent has left the child permanently or indefinitely in the care of others, given it to another, or surrendered it entirely.

custody and 'sole responsibility' are not always the same thing, you can have custody of a child but the British embassy might say you don't have 'sole responsibility' for example the mother might have custody but work, say in H/K and the child is looked after by the father, her mother or sister, if so its possible that the embassy might say the mother doesn't have 'sole responsibility'.

but really the only problem people face, is, if the child still lives with the father or has a lot of contact with the father (i suppose with his approval their shouldn't be a problem) or if the mother works in another country and the child has been looked after by someone else for a long time. but even then i would have thought most of these cases could be won on appeal.

so in most cases there shouldn't be a problem with 'sole responsibility'

Thanks again Joe this has put my mind to rest, I must admit I’ve been stressed recently, and just trying to make a watertight case and getting as much facts and info as I can.
You all have been welcoming and really helpful.
Mark

[quickwillow]

We didn't go down the annulment route, we opted for presumptive death instead because it's much faster and much cheaper than annulment. My wife's was all done and dusted in about 7 months and cost about £1200, plus 2 or 3 additional payments of about P5000 that her attorney dreamed up along the way.

Even when the whole legal process was complete, we still had to pay another bung, about P2,500, to get the clerk of the court to release the papers.

As far as kids are concerned, I don't think that they or their custody plays any part in a Philippines annulment.

Iain.

The first Attn. had £700 for filing the case arranging and paying for the psychology report and the newspaper adds for 3 weeks and 1 or 2 more appearances in court. We were then said to wait for another court date, which never happened. The second Attn. has manage to sort everything out, I must say quite quickly for £550, but still don’t actually have the papers. I’m sure like you there will be more charges before they are in our hands. Although the time scale has been longer than yours, part of this I believe is a 6-month cooling off period from filing the case to proceeding, which from my understanding is to give the couple time to change there mind. When I first started looking into this I was told about £ 1800 and if I was lucky about 9-12 months. It has taken 14 months for the decision, and we are now playing a waiting game for the papers until the 12 May.

[IainBusby]

The first Attn. had £700 for filing the case arranging and paying for the psychology report and the newspaper adds for 3 weeks and 1 or 2 more appearances in court. We were then said to wait for another court date, which never happened. The second Attn. has manage to sort everything out, I must say quite quickly for £550, but still don’t actually have the papers. I’m sure like you there will be more charges before they are in our hands. Although the time scale has been longer than yours, part of this I believe is a 6-month cooling off period from filing the case to proceeding, which from my understanding is to give the couple time to change there mind. When I first started looking into this I was told about £ 1800 and if I was lucky about 9-12 months. It has taken 14 months for the decision, and we are now playing a waiting game for the papers until the 12 May.

Hi Mark,
I'm not saying that your situation will be the same as ours, but when we went through this sort of thing, at this stage the attorney was the main problem, saying that the judge is not happy to release the papers yet and he thinks there maybe other procedures to go through etc, bull. He kept on saying that he would try to see the judge and see if he could sort it out, while we played our part by stupidly increasing the amount we were prepared to pay. After a while we got p off with this, so my wife started going to the courthouse every day and hassling the clerk of the court directly about it.

It is usual for the clerk of the court to accept the bribes on behalf of the judge, with a cut for himself of course, so the judge doesn't have to get openly involved. The problem with the attorney's is that at this stage, they want to be the ones who are doing the negotiating as this is the only way they can insure that they will get a big cut of however much they can squeeze out of you to get it completed.

As I said, in the end my wife started to go directly to the courthouse and eventually managed to get the papers released after about a week of hassling the clerk of the court..... and of course, paying the bung, which was no where near as much as the sort of figures the attorney was suggesting we might have to pay.
Iain.