Single mom visa for my child

Well, apply at the proper office and they will tell you what you need.  Anything else is just speculation. While you claim to have sole custody of the child, they very well might ask for some kind of document from your home country to prove this.

Hi Lelo2468,

The additional papers will be requested by the aliens office. I don't think you will get this info here, instead just a bunch of speculations as mentioned by TominStuttgart.

If it helps, a mutual friend was in the same situation though.

She was a single mom with an illegitimate child (child had the mother's name and the biological father was not officially documented  on the birth certificate). Her german husband applied for the visa, providing financial documents to prove that he is capable of supporting the child. In addition, he was asked for the certified and notarized true copy of the birth certificate.

This not a guarantee though, that it'll work as it did for her. The point of the matter is, you can try.

Kind regards,
B

Thanks, the birth certificate is apostilled,  was just wondering if they will require any other documents.

Thanks, i have applied already. Waiting for an answer.

They may well (and in my opinion should!) ask for documentation showing that you have sole custody.
This could be a court document giving you sole custody (e.g. after a divorce or separation) or something to prove that the biological father is deceased or unknown.
That a biological father exists is common sense and that he is not mentioned in the birth certificate does not prove anything! The authorities here will assume (reasonably so, I believe) that he automatically got joined custody at the time of birth of the child, as is the case in most jurisdictions

beppi wrote:

They may well (and in my opinion should!) ask for documentation showing that you have sole custody.
This could be a court document giving you sole custody (e.g. after a divorce or separation) or something to prove that the biological father is deceased or unknown.
That a biological father exists is common sense and that he is not mentioned in the birth certificate does not prove anything! The authorities here will assume (reasonably so, I believe) that he automatically got joined custody at the time of birth of the child, as is the case in most jurisdictions

I don't think there is a need for you to talk about common sense here. Making your point or better yet your opinion, will be heard one way or another. You claim you are fluent in english, therefore you should know that when you talk about matters like this, it is common to use the term "biological" father. There is always a room for interpretation, in case you haven't heard. That's the difference.

By the way, it's "joint" custody not "joined". This has nothing to do with common sense, but I thought I'd mention it.

Nonetheless, If there is no "biological" father stated on the birth certificate, it is for a fact one proof, that only the biological mother has sole custody. It would be another story if the said "biological" father claims, that the child is his. Thereby, has all the right to prove it through a DNA test.

Kind regards,
B

Thanks for the correction of joint instead of joined custody. My English is still improving!
But I disagree to the rest of your statement: There is a biological father in all cases (although Jesus is claimed to be an exception here). And in most cases there is also a legal father, who may or may not be the biological one. All this is not necessarily reflected in the birth certificate (because this may not be known or told correctly to the certifying authority at birth). So the birth cert is not suffcient proof to buerocrats.
It is also their duty to check that she has not, for example, lost custody later on and is now trying to abduct the child from its current, legal caretaker. Therefore, only a bullet-proof paper trail will work!

If you think I am exaggerating here:
My wife (Asian) is asked for proof every time she wants to fly out of Germany with our kids but without me (German)
The first time she did not have the papers and was almost prevented from boarding - they only made an exception (at the last minute) because I called the airport police, explained the situation and pleaded for leniency.
I think this is good practice to prevent child abductions!

beppi wrote:

Thanks for the correction of joint instead of joined custody. My English is still improving!
But I disagree to the rest of your statement: There is a biological father in all cases (although Jesus is claimed to be an exception here). And in most cases there is also a legal father, who may or may not be the biological one. All this is not necessarily reflected in the birth certificate (because this may not be known or told correctly to the certifying authority at birth). So the birth cert is not suffcient proof to buerocrats.
It is also their duty to check that she has not, for example, lost custody later on and is now trying to abduct the child from its current, legal caretaker. Therefore, only a bullet-proof paper trail will work!

Dear Beppi,

The last thing I want is to create confusion to the person who is asking the question. Besides, I don't know where you're basing all your information regarding legal father, ...told correctly, ...abduct the child, etc. I find it all very confusing, not to mention, it all sound very much like assumptions and a bunch of guesses to me.

The purpose of my joining this forum is to give my share of information in particular (only) topics, of which I know, I have experience from -- both professional and personal. If someone chooses to take my advice or the information I provided as reference, then I'm glad I could help. But I didn't join to debate, neither am I here to persuade members to start one. A healthy debate is absolutely mentally-stimulating, however not if a person makes "$marty-pant$" comments at the expense of others. Not my cup of tea.


Kind regards,
B

Thanks B, The embassy told me the birth certificate is sufficient. I Will wait for the Ausländerbehörde to see if they need more papers.

BeZwe wrote:

I don't think there is a need for you to talk about common sense here. Making your point or better yet your opinion, will be heard one way or another. You claim you are fluent in english, therefore you should know that when you talk about matters like this, it is common to use the term "biological" father. There is always a room for interpretation, in case you haven't heard. That's the difference.

By the way, it's "joint" custody not "joined". This has nothing to do with common sense, but I thought I'd mention it.

Nonetheless, If there is no "biological" father stated on the birth certificate, it is for a fact one proof, that only the biological mother has sole custody. It would be another story if the said "biological" father claims, that the child is his. Thereby, has all the right to prove it through a DNA test.

Kind regards,
B

I think these comments are well meant but overly harsh and not all necessarily correct.  Lots of advice given would seem to fall under the category of “common sense” – but people ask the questions anyway. So obviously, what seems obvious to some is not clear to others.

And yes, lack of information of the biological father on a passport would seem to make logical sense that the mother is the sole custodian. But this is NOT necessarily the case, it is a mere rationalization. Even with no father in the picture, then some officials might want the security of a document clearly stating sole custodianship. It could be that the woman had the baby while the father was out of town, or not even aware of the pregnancy and gave no information for the birth certificate. But the father might have come into the picture or gotten informed afterwards – and even been required to pay child support. Or say the biological father is in prison or dead, the paternal grandparents might bring a court case to get visiting or even shared custodian rights. Or a woman has a child, father not even known, but shortly afterwards she marries and the husband adopts the child. She divorces and gets married again, this time to a German. The ex-husband will still be the legal father although not the biological one.

One needn’t speculate on the actual case but just mention that there are actually multiple possibilities that can muddle the legal situation. And this is why a document stating that a single parent is the sole custodian could be required.

Thanks, Tom, for stating the obvious!