A migrant mother who is fighting to stay in New Zealand with her 2-year-old child says Immigration New Zealand will be denying her son his right to stay and have regular contact with his Kiwi father if she is deported.
Ferisita Sapalia, an Indonesian national, has been told by Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson there will be no ministerial intervention to give her permanent residence after her marriage broke up during the time her application was being processed.
The minister has asked her to take the matter to the Family Court, even though both parents have agreed to the boy, Elgar, being raised in New Zealand under Ms Sapalia's custody and have signed a deed of settlement stating that the father, Yves Dombrowsky, will pay $160 a week in child support.
Elgar was born in New Zealand.
Ms Sapalia, 28, married Mr Dombrowsky, 44, a New Zealand citizen originally from France, in 2008 but they separated last November - six months after she lodged a residency application under the family (partnership) policy.
Ms Sapalia felt she was being punished for her honesty.
"If we had kept our mouths shut for a few more weeks, chances are I would have gotten my permanent residency - but I thought it was only right to inform them of a change in the circumstance of our marriage," she said.
"Now I have put my son in a situation where he could be kicked out of New Zealand with me.
"I am just totally surprised that Immigration does not take into consideration the best interest of the child."
Ms Wilkinson has asked the couple to give the Family Court about their view on where their son should live.
Ms Sapalia says she can't understand why a letter of support from Mr Dombrowsky and the deed of settlement cannot be accepted as "an agreement" on where they wanted their child to be raised.
"If Elgar is forced to leave with me, Immigration will break up the family even more because he can't have regular contact with his father," she said.
"Children with one parent who is a foreigner also face risk of abduction and ransom in Indonesia."
A spokesman for Ms Wilkinson said yesterday that a deed of settlement was not a means of circumventing immigration laws.
"In all custody-related matters, it's the responsibility of the parents to come to an agreement in light of immigration realities, either between themselves or through the Family Court," he said.
"The minister can reconsider where circumstances change and new information, such as the opinion of the Family Court, is presented to her."
Ms Sapalia had until August, when her visitor visa would expire, to explore immigration options that might allow her to stay here lawfully, he said.
A Removal Authority decision last year said that the best interests of New Zealand-citizen children did not necessarily determine whether parents could stay here.
Head of Immigration New Zealand Nigel Bickle said having a child who was a New Zealand citizen did not automatically give the parent a right to reside or remain here.
The department did not keep statistics on how many parents with citizen children had been removed or deported, he said.
(Source NZ Herald, Lincoln Tan)
What is happening with the Human Rights in this case? Today an article was published in CathNews New Zealand stating that, "New Zealand’s human rights eroding says Amnesty", inclusive of this comment, "The Government has failed to formally safeguard human rights for all New Zealanders by continuing to refuse to legally entrench the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, allowing for the possible enactment of legislation that could be inconsistent with its provisions. The Act also fails to give legal recognition to economic, social and cultural rights". Well, this is a great example!
