My son has Down Syndrome

[on-hold]

I don't think that scylla ment any harm, she just wanted to say that it is better to be prepared of everything then to be suprised when it is too late. Also, I think that it depends on the doctor what is their recommendation going to be, so it doesn't suprise me that some people had no problem with child who has DS and some did.

@ Robert5 - you shold have done a testing called amniocentesis where they take some portion of amniotic fluid and test it for several genetic disorders, among which is Down syndrom. It is mandatory in our country if the woman is older than 33 and or if any of you had family history with cancer etc. It is done in 14th week of pregnancy (if I remember correctly), so it is too late for the baby but not too late if you plan to have more children. If it is any consolation to you, we have a boy with DS in our neighbourhood (he is 16-17) who has a younger sister in perfect health.

This is not an acceptable thing to say to a parent with a Down child. First, you are assuming that they would have aborted the child if they knew -- many people choose to have children with Down syndrome, and love them. Second, you are implying that their child does not have the right to be alive, that she should have been diagnosed and aborted. That is not acceptable here in Canada -- perhaps it is where you come from, but if you immigrate here and say such things, you're going to get punched in the nose. Take your cruel, ignorant 'advice' somewhere else, please.

 

[emiiuki]

This is not an acceptable thing to say to a parent with a Down child. First, you are assuming that they would have aborted the child if they knew -- many people choose to have children with Down syndrome, and love them. Second, you are implying that their child does not have the right to be alive, that she should have been diagnosed and aborted. That is not acceptable here in Canada -- perhaps it is where you come from, but if you immigrate here and say such things, you're going to get punched in the nose. Take your cruel, ignorant 'advice' somewhere else, please.

Don't twist my words and try to make me look like a baby killer! Robert said that his wife is 7 months pregnant and that they don't know if the has a DS or not and I explained what is the procedure to find that out. When I said that it is too late for this baby, I ment the procedure. It is not possible to do the amniocentesis now because the baby is too big and there is not enough amniotic fluid to be pulled out. It is up to the parents to decide what to do if the results are not good and it is not up to you to judge their decision, no matter what that decision is. Canada is a liberal society and it allows a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, as you would say, that is what is acceptable in Canada. If you clame otherwise you should go back to your home contry because, eventually, you are going to be punched in the nose.

 

[on-hold]

Don't twist my words and try to make me look like a baby killer! Robert said that his wife is 7 months pregnant and that they don't know if the has a DS or not and I explained what is the procedure to find that out. When I said that it is too late for this baby, I ment the procedure. It is not possible to do the amniocentesis now because the baby is too big and there is not enough amniotic fluid to be pulled out. It is up to the parents to decide what to do if the results are not good and it is not up to you to judge their decision, no matter what that decision is. Canada is a liberal society and it allows a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, as you would say, that is what is acceptable in Canada. If you clame otherwise you should go back to your home contry because, eventually, you are going to be punched in the nose.

Your answer doesn't make sense -- first you say you don't want to look like a baby killer, second you say that abortion is acceptable. Both show that you don't understand my point; don't give people advice about abortion.

And worse, your first point does not make clear what you are talking about. It could be the current pregnancy, but it could also be the child with Down syndrome. I accept your apology if you meant the former, but you are not a careful enough writer to give advice about such topics.

 

[donutbox]

Is having high cholesterol grounds for "medical inadmissibility" (particularly for someone who has no outward appearance of being "unhealthy"....i.e, this person is in the early 30s, normal weight etc, etc)?

Does CIC medical test test for high cholesterol?

 

[computergeek]

It's all about costs. The ruling case law in this case is the Hilewitz decision (http://canlii.ca/t/1lsvm) and is on point with respect to social service requirements. More recent decisions (e.g., Companioni - http://canlii.ca/t/2795j) have extended this to medical costs as well.

If the anticipated will exceed the "excessive costs" threshold (adjusted annually by CIC and last I looked more than $6k per year) then CIC will refuse your application on the basis of "excessive demand".

This is a quagmire for CIC to be honest, because Hilewtiz established that CIC must conduct an individualized assessment of the prospective PR. This is an area in which officers are found to be deficient - I've read dozens of these cases and judges are deeply troubled by the policies of CIC in this area and have constrained them - including rules around fairness, clearly establishing the basis for a negative decision (e.g., Sapru) and properly evaluating applicants.

But this is a very specialized area. The OP has entered the first part of this process: evaluation. CIC will want to establish how many social services will be required to determine if the child will create excessive demand (in the next five or ten years). But this process is rather subjective and an applicant can obtain alternative opinions that disagree with the medical officer.

If the medical officer reaches an opinion that the child is inadmissible due to excessive demand, she or he will recommend refusal to the visa officer. The visa officer will then issue a "fairness letter" advising the applicant of the issues and giving the applicant some period of time to address them. An applicant can disagree with the medical diagnosis and the estimate of costs.

An applicant may also provide a "credible plan" for paying those expenses that does not rely upon social services. For example, if social services in the settlement province are financially based, an applicant can use those limits and point out that some (or all) costs will be born by the applicant under the rules of the province. An applicant can arrange for other options that may be available - but CIC will not tell you about these options. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do the research and figure these things out. For example, an applicant might be able to post a bond with the province, or use existing insurance to cover those costs, or find an NGO that is willing to bear those expenses. While CIC will also request an affidavit from the applicant that use of those services will not be required they won't consider it as part of their analysis.

There are a very small handful of attorneys capable of helping you in this area. They do an excellent job, but their services will cost thousands of dollars and there is never a guarantee - but working with an attorney will often put you in a position so that in the case of a negative decision you have a strong platform from which to challenge the decision - I'd say about 75% of skilled worker applicants who challenge their refusals for excessive demand in Federal Court are successful. That's a stunning number, given that CIC wins something like 80% of all Federal Court applications filed against them.

I've personally been through this, though in the medical excessive demand, not the social service excessive demand, but the process is the same now.

 

[emiiuki]

Your answer doesn't make sense -- first you say you don't want to look like a baby killer, second you say that abortion is acceptable. Both show that you don't understand my point; don't give people advice about abortion.

It does make sense if you do have a sense to process the information. Weater or not abortion is acceptable is up to an individual to decide, but it is LEGAL in Canada, be free to check it out, as many other things that are denied in non developed countries around the world, specially related to women rights. Also, even it is legal, it doesn't mean that you have to do it, no matter if the fetus is healthy or not. Understood?

And worse, your first point does not make clear what you are talking about. It could be the current pregnancy, but it could also be the child with Down syndrome. I accept your apology if you meant the former, but you are not a careful enough writer to give advice about such topics.

Boy with DS is four years old and is definitelly not a baby so it is perfectly clear who I was talking about. You can not accept my appology because I didn't offer you one, you shold appologise to me since you attacked me (and not just me, apparently, in this forum) with no reason just because you are too lazy to read carefully. If you have a problem understanding the text, you should read and read and read, up to the piont it becomes clear to you. Repetitio est mater studiorum!
You should also appologise to Robert for starting the discussion about abortion while his baby is due soon!

 

[donutbox]

Thanks for referring to the respective case law regarding the issue of inadmissibility.

It's all about costs. The ruling case law in this case is the Hilewitz decision (http://canlii.ca/t/1lsvm) and is on point with respect to social service requirements. More recent decisions (e.g., Companioni - http://canlii.ca/t/2795j) have extended this to medical costs as well.

If the anticipated will exceed the "excessive costs" threshold (adjusted annually by CIC and last I looked more than $6k per year) then CIC will refuse your application on the basis of "excessive demand".

This is a quagmire for CIC to be honest, because Hilewtiz established that CIC must conduct an individualized assessment of the prospective PR. This is an area in which officers are found to be deficient - I've read dozens of these cases and judges are deeply troubled by the policies of CIC in this area and have constrained them - including rules around fairness, clearly establishing the basis for a negative decision (e.g., Sapru) and properly evaluating applicants.

But this is a very specialized area. The OP has entered the first part of this process: evaluation. CIC will want to establish how many social services will be required to determine if the child will create excessive demand (in the next five or ten years). But this process is rather subjective and an applicant can obtain alternative opinions that disagree with the medical officer.

If the medical officer reaches an opinion that the child is inadmissible due to excessive demand, she or he will recommend refusal to the visa officer. The visa officer will then issue a "fairness letter" advising the applicant of the issues and giving the applicant some period of time to address them. An applicant can disagree with the medical diagnosis and the estimate of costs.

An applicant may also provide a "credible plan" for paying those expenses that does not rely upon social services. For example, if social services in the settlement province are financially based, an applicant can use those limits and point out that some (or all) costs will be born by the applicant under the rules of the province. An applicant can arrange for other options that may be available - but CIC will not tell you about these options. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do the research and figure these things out. For example, an applicant might be able to post a bond with the province, or use existing insurance to cover those costs, or find an NGO that is willing to bear those expenses. While CIC will also request an affidavit from the applicant that use of those services will not be required they won't consider it as part of their analysis.

There are a very small handful of attorneys capable of helping you in this area. They do an excellent job, but their services will cost thousands of dollars and there is never a guarantee - but working with an attorney will often put you in a position so that in the case of a negative decision you have a strong platform from which to challenge the decision - I'd say about 75% of skilled worker applicants who challenge their refusals for excessive demand in Federal Court are successful. That's a stunning number, given that CIC wins something like 80% of all Federal Court applications filed against them.

I've personally been through this, though in the medical excessive demand, not the social service excessive demand, but the process is the same now.

 

[obs35]

It's all about costs. The ruling case law in this case is the Hilewitz decision (http://canlii.ca/t/1lsvm) and is on point with respect to social service requirements. More recent decisions (e.g., Companioni - http://canlii.ca/t/2795j) have extended this to medical costs as well.

If the anticipated will exceed the "excessive costs" threshold (adjusted annually by CIC and last I looked more than $6k per year) then CIC will refuse your application on the basis of "excessive demand".

This is a quagmire for CIC to be honest, because Hilewtiz established that CIC must conduct an individualized assessment of the prospective PR. This is an area in which officers are found to be deficient - I've read dozens of these cases and judges are deeply troubled by the policies of CIC in this area and have constrained them - including rules around fairness, clearly establishing the basis for a negative decision (e.g., Sapru) and properly evaluating applicants.

But this is a very specialized area. The OP has entered the first part of this process: evaluation. CIC will want to establish how many social services will be required to determine if the child will create excessive demand (in the next five or ten years). But this process is rather subjective and an applicant can obtain alternative opinions that disagree with the medical officer.

If the medical officer reaches an opinion that the child is inadmissible due to excessive demand, she or he will recommend refusal to the visa officer. The visa officer will then issue a "fairness letter" advising the applicant of the issues and giving the applicant some period of time to address them. An applicant can disagree with the medical diagnosis and the estimate of costs.

An applicant may also provide a "credible plan" for paying those expenses that does not rely upon social services. For example, if social services in the settlement province are financially based, an applicant can use those limits and point out that some (or all) costs will be born by the applicant under the rules of the province. An applicant can arrange for other options that may be available - but CIC will not tell you about these options. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do the research and figure these things out. For example, an applicant might be able to post a bond with the province, or use existing insurance to cover those costs, or find an NGO that is willing to bear those expenses. While CIC will also request an affidavit from the applicant that use of those services will not be required they won't consider it as part of their analysis.

There are a very small handful of attorneys capable of helping you in this area. They do an excellent job, but their services will cost thousands of dollars and there is never a guarantee - but working with an attorney will often put you in a position so that in the case of a negative decision you have a strong platform from which to challenge the decision - I'd say about 75% of skilled worker applicants who challenge their refusals for excessive demand in Federal Court are successful. That's a stunning number, given that CIC wins something like 80% of all Federal Court applications filed against them.

I've personally been through this, though in the medical excessive demand, not the social service excessive demand, but the process is the same now.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2013/ob504.asp

this is the official amount.

 

[Robert5]

Dear Mr. scylla

Please do not frighten the people with your advises. I know a person in this forum (who is my relative) whose child had DS. The CIC requested for medicals and they reported the same with a letter to CIC explaining the condition of their kid.

Now they are happily living in canada for the two yrs...

@ OP i suggest you the same. Do the meds and explain the CIC with a letter

Hi Guys, I really appreciate all your comments, incluiding to you, scylla, I also agree with you, "life is not in pink", but anyway I will prepare all the medical exams necessary to explain how several is this condition for my boy and i will consult the documents that some of you mentioned. But anyway I'm expecting for what ever happens and I would do everything I may, so we will see what happens!!!! thanks to all!!!!!

 

[scylla]

Is having high cholesterol grounds for "medical inadmissibility" (particularly for someone who has no outward appearance of being "unhealthy"....i.e, this person is in the early 30s, normal weight etc, etc)?

Does CIC medical test test for high cholesterol?

No - this isn't a reason for medical inadmissibility. You'll be fine if this is your only problem.

 

[lolsy82]

How are you getting on with your immigration process? My son is also 4 with DS my husband was working in Canada for 18mths but returned to uk as we felt our application would be denied before we started as the family support we had at the time in Canada was no longer there so we opted for life in the UK perhaps now almost 1 year later the wrong move....
He is a great kid he keeps well, no medical problems or surgery, he is progressing great starts school this year, we felt a special needs placement would be best in the uk long term but he would cope in mainstream with support.

Would really appreciate any info as we kinda stopped reading up on everything end of 2011 so perhaps things have changed regarding medical inadmissibility? My husband could return to Canada to his old job anytime he wanted he got on great obviously on a work permit, would he apply for PR whilst we remained in the UK and he sponsors us under family class? Does anyone know what the financial requirements are of this?

Thanks

 

[scylla]

Would really appreciate any info as we kinda stopped reading up on everything end of 2011 so perhaps things have changed regarding medical inadmissibility? My husband could return to Canada to his old job anytime he wanted he got on great obviously on a work permit, would he apply for PR whilst we remained in the UK and he sponsors us under family class? Does anyone know what the financial requirements are of this?

There have been no changes to the medical inadmissibility rules since 2011. However if you can prove that your son won't be a burden on Canadian health care / social care systems - then by all means try applying.

Your husband will have to include you and your son in his application and all three of you will have to pass the medical in order for the application to be approved. Your husband can classify you and your son as "non-accompanying" (meaning that you're not planning to immigrate to Canada at this time). However even if you're classified as non-accompanying, you and your son must still pass the medical in order for your husband's PR visa to be approved.

 

[computergeek]

How are you getting on with your immigration process? My son is also 4 with DS my husband was working in Canada for 18mths but returned to uk as we felt our application would be denied before we started as the family support we had at the time in Canada was no longer there so we opted for life in the UK perhaps now almost 1 year later the wrong move....
He is a great kid he keeps well, no medical problems or surgery, he is progressing great starts school this year, we felt a special needs placement would be best in the uk long term but he would cope in mainstream with support.

Would really appreciate any info as we kinda stopped reading up on everything end of 2011 so perhaps things have changed regarding medical inadmissibility? My husband could return to Canada to his old job anytime he wanted he got on great obviously on a work permit, would he apply for PR whilst we remained in the UK and he sponsors us under family class? Does anyone know what the financial requirements are of this?

Note that the simple fact your son has down's syndrome is not a bar to immigration. There is no condition, disease or syndrome that disqualifies one for immigration purposes on the basis of "excessive demand". While Scylla is generally correct, the one thing that has changed is the numeric limit (which is now ~$6300 per year for medical and social service excessive demand). Provincial services and policies can be a significant factor here as well, because CIC should only consider services that would be provided at public expense. I'd also note that you don't have to prove "that your son won't be a burden on Canadian health care / social care systems". The system does expect some burden will be made on the health/social services. The key here is excessive demand. CIC interprets this in a particular way (e.g., the average per capita expenditure in Canada).

To be successful you must be aware of the services your son will require and would be publicly funded - not everything is covered. At the age of four your son wouldn't normally expect to need special educational services for at least another couple of years - and the scope of consideration is five or ten years. To make this determination you would need to work with your doctor and/or social worker to determine what services would be necessary. It's not an easy path to take and I would suggest that you work with one of the handful of attorneys that have expertise in medical inadmissibility because they can help you craft your application and the response to any potential fairness letter to maximize the likelihood of success.

As I recently observed, were Stephen Hawking to apply for permanent residency in Canada he would be refused as excessive demand medically inadmissible - thus demonstrating the point that the current system excludes people who really do contribute to the world.

 

[lolsy82]

Thank you for your replies.
What sort of services do we have to think about predicting? Speech therapy/Occupational Therapy etc? He has had these services since a baby and we really don't have much contact with them now unless we need them. We have a supportive team behind us who we have previously discussed this move with and would be willing to help us with supportive letters etc
Where can I find information regarding the medical process that they look at for him?

 

[computergeek]

If he doesn't need services so much the better.

I'm afraid there is not much here because the evaluation is individualized. So you need to explain what he needs. If he doesn't need much have letters from his support team saying so. Then find out the coverage for your target province. Try to find what the costs will be and how much is covered.

The new panel physician handbook will be released soon (hopefully) and it may have more insight.