View Single Post
Old 19.11.2015, 12:34
doropfiz doropfiz is offline
Forum Legend
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ZH
Posts: 7,831
Groaned at 87 Times in 69 Posts
Thanked 11,656 Times in 4,733 Posts
doropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Children’s wellbeing firstmost – KESB – permit?

Thank you, Medea Fleecestealer.

No, Bob's permit is not on the basis of his being Sue's dependent. That's why it is not a simple renewal. Bob and Sue are not married, and their connection is unstable.
Bob has a permit of his own that expired, and has been extended by the Immigration Office without prejudice, for another few weeks. During that time, Bob is required to supply a lot of documents, and is collecting these.

It will, however, be impossible for Bob to supply them all within the short time specified by the Immigration Office. Therefore Bob is looking for the legal grounds upon which to argue that he should be granted an extension so he can stay here and look after his Swiss children.... while he is collecting the documentation, and at the very least until Sue gets back.

The situation in Go-land is such that the children are in danger there. That is why they are in Switzerland, now, instead of Bob just quietly taking them back to Go-land. In Go-land, they belong to a minority group which is known to be the target of violence. I think it wiser not to go into that too much here, because Go-land is a dangerous place for people of this minority group, and this is a public forum, but the danger is - at least for someone with knowledge of Go-land - real. From here, I have been in touch with an expert in Go-land, who concurs.

Sue is in Go-land, and she (having a different status from that of her children) is alright there. She will return to Switzerland in some months' time. And it is not clear what will happen then as Bob is the primary care-giver, and over the years Sue has spent many long visits with Bob and the children, but also many long periods away from them. It is not clear whether Sue has any interest in becoming a caregiver, and this question can be discussed with the Social Services and the Child Protection Authority only once Sue is back in Switzerland.

Sue seems to think that the Swiss Immigration Office will automatically extend Bob's Permit, simply because Bob is taking care of the children as he usually does, and furthermore because Sue will not be back in Switzerland for several months. This, however, is not what the "without prejudice" permit says. It says: documents, or else Bob is out.

I doubt very much that, at this stage, Bob could reasonalbly hope for any kind of permanent permit. That stands to reason since naturally Bob must suppply the Immigration Office all the documentation that they require about himself and the children. It is just that collecting this takes some months (= longer than the short permit that is soon to expire), and so Bob and his children need that Bob be granted a period of grace (another "without prejudice" permit extension), so that the children can be safe now, and so that Bob's case can be evaluated properly when all the papers arrive.

Please, does anyone know which laws rule about such matters, and how and with which arguments to appeal to the Immigration Office that letting Bob stay, right now, even on a temporary basis, is in the best interests of the 3 Swiss children? Or any precendents in court judgments?

Thank you very much.
Reply With Quote