A question about children

[gentar]

Hi

I have a child from a previous relationship. I a competing the application and one of the questions asks me to state dependents regardless whether they are accompyning or not.

I have spoken to his mother and she is not willing to co-operate and so I can't even do the medical check for my child.


It is my understanding that if the medical is not done then the child cannot ever be considered for sponsorship in the future.


So, in this instance what then is the point of putting my child down on the application?



If anybody can shed light on this I would be happy!! thanks

 

[CharlieD10]

The point of putting the child on the application is that you will be in breach of Section 11 which requires you to answer all questions truthfully. Withholding the existence of a family member is misrepresentation. It might seem simple, or even redundant because you are not able to obtain permission at this time to have the child examined, but it can come back to bite you on the backside quite severely.

Suppose that in a few years time your child, no longer needing permission from his mother, wants to come and visit you? He/she fills out an application for a TRV, lists you as their parent, and you (forgetting you hadn't mentioned him/her in your application) send them a letter of invitation to bolster their application. CIC would be very interested to know where this child came from, considering you never mentioned one in your PR application!

Worst case scenario, your child's mother is incapacitated or worse, and no longer able to care for the child. What will you do then? Point all of this out to her, and remind her that all that the medical exam does is preserve your right to fulfill your obligations to the child in the future, should any such need arise. Do whatever you have to to make this clear to her, and try to get her consent. If CIC feels you are not doing enough, they CAN deem you inadmissible because they don't know if your child is inadmissible. With enough proof that you have done the best you can to obtain a medical, they may be willing to relent and only ask you to sign the form showing you know you can't try to sponsor them later. Throwing up your hands and walking away without much effort will not impress them, and neither will your child be impressed later on in life, either, that you so easily walked away from them.

 

[visita44]

(Inland Processing) IP 8 Spouse or Common-law partner in Canada Class

5.9. Dependent children
The applicant must list on the application all dependent children, whether in Canada or overseas,
and indicate which dependent children are seeking permanent residence.

All dependent children must still be examined for admissibility at the time of the applicant's
application for permanent residence (i.e., medical, security and criminality), whether or not they
are processed for permanent residence. Dependent children are exempt from the excessivedemand
factor.

If dependent children are not examined, they may not be sponsored at a later date.

5.12. Dependent children in the sole custody of a former or separated spouse/common-law partner

The Regulations create an exception regarding the admissibility requirements for principal
applicants when their children are in the sole custody of a separated or former spouse or
common-law partner. Applicants must however provide documentary proof of the custody
arrangements.

The CPC or the CIC may insist on a child being examined if it believes that custody arrangements
are not genuine, but rather, that they were entered into in order to facilitate the applicant's
permanent residence in Canada by hiding the child's inadmissibility. If an applicant lists a child in
the sole custody of a separated or former spouse or common-law partner, it is appropriate to
inform applicants that:
• children who are not examined cannot later be sponsored as members of the family class,
despite any future changes in custody arrangements (see Section 5.26 on excluded
relationships); and
• the best interests of the child might be better served by having the child examined. If this
advice is declined, this should be noted.

Applicants should be counselled to:
• sign and return a statutory declaration acknowledging the above consequences; or
• inform the CPC that they want the child examined in order to preserve future sponsorship
privileges.

 

[visita44]

If family members are genuinely unavailable or unwilling to be examined, the consequences of
not having them examined should be clearly explained to the applicant and noted on the record.
Officers may wish to have applicants sign a statutory declaration indicating that they understand
the consequences of not having a family member examined.

Officers should be open to the possibility that a client may not be able to make a family member
available for examination. If an applicant has done everything in their power to have their family
member examined but has failed to do so, and the officer is satisfied that the applicant is aware of
the consequences of this (i.e., no future sponsorship possible), then a refusal of their application
for non-compliance would not be appropriate.

Officers must decide on a case-by-case basis, using common sense and good judgment, whether
to proceed with an application even if all family members have not been examined. Some
scenarios where this may likely occur include where an ex-spouse refuses to allow a child to be
examined or an overage dependent refuses to be examined. Proceeding in this way should be a
last resort and only after the officer is convinced that the applicant cannot make the family
member available for examination. The applicant themselves cannot choose not to have a family
member examined.