In my experience psychological research studies have routinely been included with H&C applications since the Best Interests of the Child became an issue. They can and probably have worked, and they can also fail to convince decision-makers that they outweigh other considerations.
Something case specific from an accredited specialist with a professional knowledge of the applicants will have greater weight than a generalized report about how nations owe citizenship to errant moms and dads.
My reference about plaid and polka dots was probably insensitive but it is more aligned with how people facing removal often behave like some injustice is being committed because: they have children, they pay taxes, they don't sell drugs - or, whatever pride-saving bluster that they can muster when confronted with the consequences of not conforming with the law of a foreign nation. It's very common but it's not a good look for the subject of a removal order.
If simply having a child shields any parent from any future separation then this isn't a feasible understanding of what's reasonable. So, people with the authority to make the decision need to be alive and alert to the issues raised about the welfare of the children. The evidence provided needs to be compelling and specific to the people concerned.
Irreparable harm has to be established by the principle applicants so no one should get the notion that simply being fertile excludes a person's requirement to conform to the laws of a foreign country.
What country would the removal be to, and how is it that the father will be unable to accompany them there in order to live happily ever after? That seems to be an obvious solution to this matter.
Don't worry about risking insensitivity - it's not so harsh when it's so well dressed in plaids
Good to know that a legitimate concern for a child with an accompanying support letter in his back pocket from an accredited specialist carries some weight. Thank you.
Your description conjured an image of a long line of fertile women waiting to enter at the front the door of a country - some of the women are dressed in a manner many an Amish and muslim might find unbecoming in contrast to others watching enthusiastically in anticipation of potential interaction,
The country, it should be noted, has the second largest land mass on the planet - 9.9 million squ. km with a population a few million less than the city of Tokyo with a land mass of 6,900 squ. km.
Bornlucky, for the benefit of the enthusiastic ones, some of whom may be members here on the website, how long would you estimate the fertile line up to be if the current laws were not in place, and do you think there's enough space in the country for them?
Glad you mentioned the removal country to be.
The history of the country is rather disconcerting. It was invaded by a far superior foreign military power whose government imposed action which, according to critics, amounted to genocide, massive illegal appropriation of virtually all the land, and currently insufficient housing, police brutality and restricted access to essentials such as clean water, affordable food and healthcare for the original inhabitants and, according to The Guardian and other critics - left 'a toxic legacy of abuse and death of children'.
Oh, sorry, wait a minute, Bornlucky, I made a mistake - that's not the country she'd be removed to, that's Canada, isn't it - y'know the same country with the big law lock to prevent all those dodgy fertile women waiting in line to get in
If I can diverge from my infantile humour for a moment ....
H&C applications, from my understanding, are usually a last resort; however, if an H&C application is made and refused, can an application be made to sponsor a spouse for permanent residency and, if so, what is the waiting period for the application after the H&C refusal?
