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'
Originally Posted by quickwillow
. 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. 
