International Child Custody

[ElQueso]

Clear, accurate legal advice can only come from those practicing law in this specialty. Perhaps bajo cero is the only one who would be remotely qualified to answer this thread with that sort of advice, and I doubt he would give any solid advice without a private consultation with the OP.

The posts most of us have made on this forum are our direct experiences, aside from those who have put forth conjectures (which obviously have an extremely limited amount of validity).

That's why many of us mention "go talk to a lawyer." But at least she has some information with which to start, most of which says "extremely difficult, to impossible, to do legally without permission."

As far as "moral compass" goes, well, tell me where the handbook is that everyone has agreed on, consistently, that points the way in this case.

Is it a mother's moral compass that says she fears for the child's future for whatever reason she feels valid and considers doing something for the sake of the child that others may find offensive? Is it of a father who wants to "exercise his right" as a father in order to stick it to the mother? Is it the mother's who decided not to get an abortion because she feels it's a mortal sin, even though knowing she may be faced with some seriously hard decisions when it comes to the well-being of her child? Is it that of a father who doesn't feel the mother can raise the baby with any kind of reasonable expectation of a good outcome? Is it the father who is desparately concerned that the mother may take off with his kid and he really wants to be a part of the kid's life?

Or is it the moral compass of corrupt and often unbending/uncaring, over-burdened governmental institutions?

I'm making no moral judgements myself, neither on those situations I mention, nor on the situation of the mother and father in this particular thread. I'm not at all saying that her situation is any way related to what I mention.

I couldn't even begin to judge her/their situation, even if she spelled it out completely here because I'm not equipped to walk in her shoes.

Each person in this world must follow their own compass. Hopefully it's based on some stable code of morality that has been reasoned out internally. But it's not up to us to judge in situations like these, in my opinion.

And very, very little in this world is black and white.

 

[TheBlackHand]

So it's morally okay to kidnap children and take them out of their home country without their parents consent just because one parent doesn't get along with their spouse ?? Really ? Like I said the moral compass on this forum is laughable.

But you're welcome to beat the dead horse if it makes you feel like you've made a point.

I thing you are confusing "moral compass" with "legal reality." If our subsequent conjecture about the OPs brief post is true, then sure, morally she "should" be able to leave with the child.

 

[Aonikenk]

I am so sorry for your situation. I was in a similar. Unfortunately as most of these posts have pointed out, you cannot leave without a document from an escribana. I would definitely talk to a lawyer. Perhaps the embassy can recommend someone? As an alternative, perhaps attempt to make good until you can convince him to grant permission to see your parents or a family vacation to the states. However you can swing it, try to get to the states and then handle everything from that side. Again, I am so sorry for your situation. You must be so stressed and worried. Hang in there, something will work in your favor.

 

[ElQueso]

Man, it's not always that simple. No one said just because the mother doesn't get along with the father that's a valid reason for kidnapping the kid and removing him or her from the father.

When I speak about the morality of an issue like this, I certainly don't think in those terms. I think most would agree (myself included) in that case that it is morally wrong just because they don't get along.

For me, the morality should be based in a large part on the child's welfare, not the parents' (although obviously that must be taken into consideration as well). Each parent has to make that decision according to their interpretation of their own moral code.

Where is the morality in forcing both mother and child to be subjected to continued abuse, for example? Particularly if the father is restricting travel and living location just to add more spite because he can? I mean on top of abuse that he hands out on visits and other occasions. Or the complete absence of visits and supports (proving the guy has no intention of being a father - but I think that has to be proven over time, not in the first couple of months of the child's birth), and the only time there is an issue is when the mother wants to take the kid to visit his relatives? I've actually seen quite a few cases exactly like that among poorer people here and in Paraguay.

Or vice versa - if the man feels like the woman will somehow leave illegally and he has every intention of being a father to the child. He might examine the morality versus the law as well, particularly if the mother is a drunk or drug addict (to go the extremes in both cases).

I think those could be valid, moral reasons to do something like that, particularly in the possible absence of official help..

Again, I'm not proposing that this is the OP's situation, I'm just trying to show that morality and the law don't always coincide and I don't think we should judge hypothetical situations, or honest pleas for help, based on a "moral compass" that most likely varies from person to person depending on circumstances.

And to top it all off, the mother never hinted that she was thinking about kidnapping the kid and taking him out of the country illegally - she was searching for a legal way to do it, even though I doubt there is except under the most extreme of situations.

I think I may have inadvertently got people off on that myself with a comment I made about the ability to get children over the border at land crossings without the paper. I certainly didn't mean to to suggest to her or anyone else that this is a viable option. Aside from the legal problems that are sure to arise from that, it wouldn't even do her any good in that case because she still would have to leave the country in which she finds herself - she still wouldn't be back in the States.

My comment in that regard was related to the specific problems caused by people legislating something when trying to stop a problem, and the legislation itself does more harm to legitimate people than it does to the criminals they are trying to stop.

Sorry for taking things in a bit of a different direction.

 

[El chabon]

I am so sorry for your situation. I was in a similar. Unfortunately as most of these posts have pointed out, you cannot leave without a document from an escribana. I would definitely talk to a lawyer. Perhaps the embassy can recommend someone? As an alternative, perhaps attempt to make good until you can convince him to grant permission to see your parents or a family vacation to the states. However you can swing it, try to get to the states and then handle everything from that side. Again, I am so sorry for your situation. You must be so stressed and worried. Hang in there, something will work in your favor.

Especially for people with thoughts like that, most people won't going to give her permission to travel outside the mercosur.

I think there is a famous case from Argentine and US parents where the US parent 'lost' when the real loser is the kid

 

[TheBlackHand]

Right. At the end of the day nobody knows the real facts and no one ever will since the OP isn't going to tell the truth, she's just going to tell whatever it is she thinks will make people sympathetic to her situation. Having said all that, I still don't care. Kidnapping children and taking them across international borders is illegal AND immoral. But I understand if you or others feel differently. Whatever this woman is thinking about now she should have thought before she had a child with this person. Now he has just as much right to the child as she does and that's the way it should be.

With parents like these, no wonder the world is going down the shitter.

Man, it's not always that simple. No one said just because the mother doesn't get along with the father that's a valid reason for kidnapping the kid and removing him or her from the father.

When I speak about the morality of an issue like this, I certainly don't think in those terms. I think most would agree (myself included) in that case that it is morally wrong just because they don't get along.

For me, the morality should be based in a large part on the child's welfare, not the parents' (although obviously that must be taken into consideration as well). Each parent has to make that decision according to their interpretation of their own moral code.

Where is the morality in forcing both mother and child to be subjected to continued abuse, for example? Particularly if the father is restricting travel and living location just to add more spite because he can? I mean on top of abuse that he hands out on visits and other occasions. Or the complete absence of visits and supports (proving the guy has no intention of being a father - but I think that has to be proven over time, not in the first couple of months of the child's birth), and the only time there is an issue is when the mother wants to take the kid to visit his relatives? I've actually seen quite a few cases exactly like that among poorer people here and in Paraguay.

Or vice versa - if the man feels like the woman will somehow leave illegally and he has every intention of being a father to the child. He might examine the morality versus the law as well, particularly if the mother is a drunk or drug addict (to go the extremes in both cases).

I think those could be valid, moral reasons to do something like that, particularly in the possible absence of official help..

Again, I'm not proposing that this is the OP's situation, I'm just trying to show that morality and the law don't always coincide and I don't think we should judge hypothetical situations, or honest pleas for help, based on a "moral compass" that most likely varies from person to person depending on circumstances.

And to top it all off, the mother never hinted that she was thinking about kidnapping the kid and taking him out of the country illegally - she was searching for a legal way to do it, even though I doubt there is except under the most extreme of situations.

I think I may have inadvertently got people off on that myself with a comment I made about the ability to get children over the border at land crossings without the paper. I certainly didn't mean to to suggest to her or anyone else that this is a viable option. Aside from the legal problems that are sure to arise from that, it wouldn't even do her any good in that case because she still would have to leave the country in which she finds herself - she still wouldn't be back in the States.

My comment in that regard was related to the specific problems caused by people legislating something when trying to stop a problem, and the legislation itself does more harm to legitimate people than it does to the criminals they are trying to stop.

Sorry for taking things in a bit of a different direction.

 

[Aleina Dee]

Do not make this a case of "Argentine law" is sadly lacking in whatever you think that is. Nor is it about the spite of one partner restricting freedom of movement.
Do not forget that in most if not all of the States it is illegal for one parent to take the child across the state line without the consent of the other parent. So this law that Argentine children cannot travel abroad without the consent of both parties is not all that draconian.

I agree with most of the posters that after 2 months it is too early to throw in the towel.The nerves of both parties are shattered from broken sleep,etc. By all means inform yourself of your rights for custody,which is a different issue from the right to travel,but unless the father presents a risk to the child I think he deserves visitation rights just like anywhere else in the world. Why make a child fatherless if the guy is willing to step up to the plate ? On another note,are the Argentine grandparents able to help mediate in this case ?

It is a terrible situation I agree, but it is not unusual. Truth be told though both parents will need to
set their issues aside whatever they may be and think of what is best for the child.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Especially for people with thoughts like that, most people won't going to give her permission to travel outside the mercosur.

I think there is a famous case from Argentine and US parents where the US parent 'lost' when the real loser is the kid

There are restrictions about traveling across the country without permission regarding to avoid illegal frontier crossing with children. So now, you need the same permission for traveling abroad to go to some states like Salta where it is super easy to cross to Bolivia.
Regards

 

[Gringoboy]

We had a similar situation, albeit the child concerned was much older, ten years old and the circumstances were more 'matured', shall we say.
My Argentine lady had a particularly acrimonious split from her long term partner (they were never married) and when I arrived on the scene six months later, unaware of the nitty gritty, it was almost open warfare.
Later, when we were planning on visiting the UK as a family, the ex demanded an exact itinery of our movements in the UK, including addresses and phone numbers which he could then track on Google maps, before giving written permission for his son to travel with us. I recoiled at this suggestion, but my lady buckled under the pressure and provided it.
He almost immediately refused permission and so we travelled without him, thus denying the child an opportunity to open his eyes to a world outside Argentina.
Our intentions were honest and never in a month of Sundays would we have considered absconding with the child. Furthermore he also refused to agree to renewing the child's passport at that time, although the law has since changed.
Either he had this real fear that we would try to 'kidnap' the child, or he was simply playing his own game. I firmly believe the latter.
Since that time there have been numerous incidents of a similar nature which have merely served to enhance the child's hatred of his father and also a fear of him.
For me, the most abhorrent is the fact that the ex uses his child as a pawn to get back at the the child's mother and he has no qualms in using this form of psychological warfare whatsoever.
For my part, I have suggested to my lady that he deserves only the information necessary, either by law or by means of seeing his son which we have never prevented.
I know this may be veering away from the original OP post, but we know by experience that there are some people who play by their own rules and those alone.
We have learned to read the undercurrent to understand the agenda. Things are more peaceful now as only time can assist in and the child who is now 16, makes his own mind up when and if to see his father.
Sadly, he said to us the other day 'When I'm 18, I will destroy him for what he has done.'
As has been said many times, we reap what we sow.

 

[TheBlackHand]

It's really sad when parents use their children like pawns. Whether it's a mother kidnapping a child and taking them out of the country just because " things didn't work out " with their partner or whether it's a father who uses the child to spite the mother. Although I have much more sympathy for a father who won't let his child travel out of the country with someone he doesn't know than a woman who kidnaps a child and takes them out of the country only because things didn't work out with the father. It's because of parents who do kidnap their children that you have parents who fear their child being kidnapped. I mean, that's the reason these laws are in place.

Imagine being a parent and reading this thread. It's both frightening and despicable at the same time. Definitely one of the reasons people need to be careful who they are having children with in the first place. Like you said we reap what we sow. So be careful who you go " sowing " with......

We had a similar situation, albeit the child concerned was much older, ten years old and the circumstances were more 'matured', shall we say.
My Argentine lady had a particularly acrimonious split from her long term partner (they were never married) and when I arrived on the scene six months later, unaware of the nitty gritty, it was almost open warfare.
Later, when we were planning on visiting the UK as a family, the ex demanded an exact itinery of our movements in the UK, including addresses and phone numbers which he could then track on Google maps, before giving written permission for his son to travel with us. I recoiled at this suggestion, but my lady buckled under the pressure and provided it.
He almost immediately refused permission and so we travelled without him, thus denying the child an opportunity to open his eyes to a world outside Argentina.
Our intentions were honest and never in a month of Sundays would we have considered absconding with the child. Furthermore he also refused to agree to renewing the child's passport at that time, although the law has since changed.
Either he had this real fear that we would try to 'kidnap' the child, or he was simply playing his own game. I firmly believe the latter.
Since that time there have been numerous incidents of a similar nature which have merely served to enhance the child's hatred of his father and also a fear of him.
For me, the most abhorrent is the fact that the ex uses his child as a pawn to get back at the the child's mother and he has no qualms in using this form of psychological warfare whatsoever.
For my part, I have suggested to my lady that he deserves only the information necessary, either by law or by means of seeing his son which we have never prevented.
I know this may be veering away from the original OP post, but we know by experience that there are some people who play by their own rules and those alone.
We have learned to read the undercurrent to understand the agenda. Things are more peaceful now as only time can assist in and the child who is now 16, makes his own mind up when and if to see his father.
Sadly, he said to us the other day 'When I'm 18, I will destroy him for what he has done.'
As has been said many times, we reap what we sow.