Can I sponsor my wife even she has a child that’s not mine?

[HairSupply]

he’s still a baby. now the baby is living with my wife. and the baby will stay with my wife’s parents

 

[Bryanna]

he’s still a baby. now the baby is living with my wife. and the baby will stay with my wife’s parents

Your in-laws would need to either legally adopt the baby or else must be given guardianship through a court in your wife's country. This would require the consent of the baby's father. In this case, your wife will never be able to sponsor the child

Or else, the child can be declared as a non-accompanying family member. The consent of the father will be required + the baby would need to go through medicals. He can be sponsored in the future

 

[vensak]

Your in-laws would need to either legally adopt the baby or else must be given guardianship through a court in your wife's country. This would require the consent of the baby's father. In this case, your wife will never be able to sponsor the child

Or else, the child can be declared as a non-accompanying family member. The consent of the father will be required + the baby would need to go through medicals. He can be sponsored in the future

But while the child will be minor still with consent of father. Or the only other option would be the small window of opportunity between 18 years and 21 years of the child in the future (if the law will remain the same).
Also prepare for lot of questioning if you want to leave the child behind (non accompanying). And prepare for lot of questioning about your relationship. No it is not that common that during relationship with one person (even if it is still called dating), people would be seeking out a lover (even if it is for a short time period). If such thing happens it usually indicates that something is not working properly there (in your case it can be a red flag for a potential marriage of convenience).

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Also prepare for lot of questioning if you want to leave the child behind (non accompanying).

There will be no questions about the child being left behind. As long as the child is properly declared, IRCC doesn't care if s/he is non-accompanying.

 

[vensak]

There will be no questions about the child being left behind. As long as the child is properly declared, IRCC doesn't care if s/he is non-accompanying.

I would contradict.

The scenario can be following:

A girl has a child with one guy, but then she will quickly marry a different guy, who just so happens to be Canadian PR.
The child will stay behind, where his father can visit it (or maybe even take care of it).
So what would be stopping the girl to divorce her husband the moment she will get PR (or a little bit later for more credibility) and then of course marry the guy she actually wanted to start a family with all the time.

This is not EE PR, this will be spousal sponsorship. So yes a child with a different guy especially left behind does look suspicious and can be a red flag there.

And no I am not saying that this did happen, but scenario not out of reach of standard CIC officer imagination.

 

[keesio]

So what would be stopping the girl to divorce her husband the moment she will get PR (or a little bit later for more credibility) and then of course marry the guy she actually wanted to start a family with all the time.

Isn;t there some rule where a person who was sponsored to Canada via spousal has to wait some number of years to sponsor another spouse? Or is it for the sponsor?

 

[vensak]

Isn;t there some rule where a person who was sponsored to Canada via spousal has to wait some number of years to sponsor another spouse? Or is it for the sponsor?

That is correct, something like 3 or 4 years. Still it not beyond imagination, that there can be people ready to do just that.

There is also one huge loophole in such scheme.

Imagine that the father of the child would by himself be medically inadmissible. Imagine that the girl would be living with the other guy for years.

During first application, nobody would check the father of the child as he would not belong to the original family unit.

The moment the girl will marry the second guy, that is when she is finally legally bound (yes common law is rather weaker here).
Now once she would get PR, then she can go after father of the child and suddenly any problem with any potential medical inadmissibility is out of the window.

And again I am not telling this is the case, but I am telling what is very well possible.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I would contradict.

The scenario can be following:

A girl has a child with one guy, but then she will quickly marry a different guy, who just so happens to be Canadian PR.
The child will stay behind, where his father can visit it (or maybe even take care of it).
So what would be stopping the girl to divorce her husband the moment she will get PR (or a little bit later for more credibility) and then of course marry the guy she actually wanted to start a family with all the time.

This is not EE PR, this will be spousal sponsorship. So yes a child with a different guy especially left behind does look suspicious and can be a red flag there.

And no I am not saying that this did happen, but scenario not out of reach of standard CIC officer imagination.

The scenario doesn't matter. It is entirely the right of the parent to immigrate without taking their child. IRCC does not question why children are non-accompanying, as it has nothing to do with the app and there are numerous reasons as to why it could happen. They only care that the child is declared and medically examined.

The fact that she had a child by a different man is an entirely different issue for the app.

The 5 year sponsorship bar is in place to deter people from doing what you suggest. Of course, nothing is foolproof; if she wanted to wait out the 5 years, she could. Desperate people probably do. The system cannot catch 100% of the fraudsters.

 

[Bryanna]

he’s still a baby. now the baby is living with my wife. and the baby will stay with my wife’s parents

Was your wife in a common-law relationship with the father of the child?

 

[vensak]

The scenario doesn't matter. It is entirely the right of the parent to immigrate without taking their child. IRCC does not question why children are non-accompanying, as it has nothing to do with the app and there are numerous reasons as to why it could happen. They only care that the child is declared and medically examined.

The fact that she had a child by a different man is an entirely different issue for the app.

The 5 year sponsorship bar is in place to deter people from doing what you suggest. Of course, nothing is foolproof; if she wanted to wait out the 5 years, she could. Desperate people probably do. The system cannot catch 100% of the fraudsters.

Red flag does not mean that something will not be approved. Red flag simply means that there will be higher scrutiny in the case. So yes they will need to provide solid explanation both why the child did happen and also why is the child not accompanying.

5 years is actually a very good timing (as it will hit just about the time, when the child will start going to school). Desperation of people should not be underestimated in any case.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Red flag does not mean that something will not be approved. Red flag simply means that there will be higher scrutiny in the case. So yes they will need to provide solid explanation both why the child did happen and also why is the child not accompanying.

5 years is actually a very good timing (as it will hit just about the time, when the child will start going to school). Desperation of people should not be underestimated in any case.

Explanation about why she had a child by another man, yes. Explanation about why the child is non-accompanying, NO.