Mum fights to stay with child
An English woman is facing separation from her two-year-old after being refused NZ residency.
Stacey Jackson, 26, will be liable for deportation once her current temporary work visa runs out on February 26 next year and she has just heard officially that she has been turned down for the particular type of residence visa she applied for.
Prior to that in the new year she hopes to ‘‘hopefully sort out’’ circumstances that prevent her son from leaving the country. The child’s father is a New Zealander.
But, said Jackson on Tuesday, she would prefer that she stay, so her son Ted can have the benefit of being brought up knowing both his parents.
She said a custody issue developed after she returned from a trip to England with their son in May.
Previously, in August 2018, she had travelled back to see family on her own.
‘‘While I was away, he finished with me over Facebook, made it clear he wouldn’t support my return and when I returned, I came back to get my son and he kicked me out with just my suits and my son,’’ she said.
‘‘I will have to leave my son here if I cannot get an extension on my visa.’’
Yesterday Jackson was further disheartened by the likely cost of fighting her case. Information from one law firm quoted $3450 to run an appeal plus the New Zealand Immigration fee of $700. To only apply for another work visa would be $1150 plus a fee of $495.
While her separation was not amicable to begin with, some child support is now being paid and a shared custody arrangement involves her son being with her most of the week and his grandparents, with whom she has a good relationship, and father over the weekend.
While currently in work, Jackson said she would still need financial support to contest her case.
At times she has felt helpless, and on the verge of depression. A far cry from when she and her former partner, who she doesn’t want named for her son’s privacy, met while both on holiday in the French Alps in 2016.
In a letter from Immigration NZ, Jackson was told she failed to satisfy a number of criteria for the specific type of residence application she had applied for – principally relating to her ability to get support and a job back in England should she return (whether that was with or without her child). In that same letter she was also told she didn’t appear to meet the criteria for other permanent residence categories either. But her major concern now is that the interests of the child do not form a big enough part of the reasoning.
Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is considered under the objectives of the residence visa she applied for but Jackson felt NZ Immigration should also be considering the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 which, as Schedule 2, includes the same UN Convention. The convention’s Article 9, paragraph three, outlines that: ‘‘States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.’’
‘‘Children should have both the mother and father in their lives,’’ she said.
She claimed immigration officials she has dealt with have not advised her of other options and wouldn’t look at the bigger picture. A NZ Immigration staff member contacted by on Wednesday said Jackson’s best option was to apply for another temporary work visa, at least two weeks before her current one expires. If she met the criteria, how long it would allow her to stay would depend on the skill level of employment that she came under.
Immigration NZ could only present options after which the applicant had to make their own decisions. For help with a particular course of action they would have to engage, and pay for, a licensed immigration adviser.
One recourse presented in the correspondence that declined Jackson’s application was to appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, a process that costs $700.
Ms Jackson would not agree to a privacy waiver to allow INZ to provide a comment on her case.
In an earlier email signalling Jackson was unsuccessful NZ Immigration indicated: ‘‘Immigration officers are only able to assess the application against what is set out in the immigration instructions and while there is no guarantee of a decision being overturned by appeal, the tribunal has the scope to take into account a wider set of circumstances.’’
It’s her final option, but for Jackson the cut and thrust is proving a drain.
‘‘I can’t afford to keep applying.’’