"A Brisbane father says he is concerned for his eight-month-old son, whose Vietnamese mother faces deportation from Australia"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/father-david-ngugen-fears-deportation-of-baby-vietnamese-mother/5399100
I came across this article and I am concerned about its possible implications if the Government has indeed changed its policy.
Whilst the article itself is short and does not provide specific facts about the case, suffice to say that if a person who seems to have been the partner of an Australian Citizen AND there is an Australian child, for whom joint custody arrangements may apply under the Family Law Act (unless there is an order to the contrary - and this does not seem to be implied in the contrary by the quotes coming from the father of the child), then how is it that the rights of the child under the convention does not seem to be upheld?
Further, whilst I understand that it may not be helpful to comment on a case where there's scant detail, of most concern is a possible change in policy without there being an announcement of such a change.
The CROC, at articles 5,7,9,18 and 36 (depending how one reads it) all refer to the rights children have to families, in particular Article 9: Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good..."
I fail to see how good it is to separate a child from any parent because of immigration status and how it is that Australia, being a signatory to the CROC, could possibly not take this into consideration.
If this is now seems to be a trend which leads to Ministerial intervention, how is it that the Department and the MRT are not considering the CROC, the Family Law Act and the PAMs instructions with regards to a relationship breakdown if there are clear orders for joint custody and access?
I raise this because I am aware of cases where DIPB is keen to establish the genuineness of a partner rAT the time of application, given that it's now broken down at the time of decision and there are young children.
Has anyone had similiar experiences or cases? what is the likelyhood of getting some clarification around this apparent 'change' in policy, if indeed there has been one?
This being my first blogso I'm not sure what it would look like once published but I would appreciate any comments on the issue. Thanks to Peter Bollard for the links to the article.
Bea Leoncini
Vice Convenor, MA