Names and identifying details have been changed to protect the family’s privacy.
Mei was living in Australia when she lodged an onshore Partner visa application based on her marriage to David, an Australian citizen.
Mei’s 11-year-old son, Minh, remained overseas. For most of his childhood, Minh had lived with his mother and maternal grandparents, who together provided him with a stable home and day-to-day care. Although Minh’s biological father had played only a limited role in his upbringing and was not responsible for his daily care, he continued to hold legal parental responsibility for him.
Because Minh was outside Australia when Mei lodged her onshore Partner visa application, he could not be included in that application as a migrating dependent child.
Mei had always intended for Minh to join her in Australia once her circumstances were more settled. She applied for a Visitor visa so that he could spend time with her and David while her Partner visa application was being processed.
However, Minh’s biological father did not provide consent for an Australian visa to be granted. Despite his limited involvement in Minh’s daily life, his legal parental responsibility meant that his consent—or evidence that Mei alone had the legal authority to decide where Minh could live—was still required.
The Visitor visa was consequently refused.
The refusal left Mei separated from her son and deeply concerned about their future. If the parental-consent issue could not be resolved, it could also prevent Minh from later receiving a visa allowing him to live permanently with his mother in Australia.
When Mei approached Heenan & Browne, the immediate temptation could have been to prepare another Visitor visa application with more evidence.
However, a stronger Visitor visa application would not have resolved the underlying legal problem. Without the biological father’s consent or an appropriate court order, another temporary or permanent visa application was likely to face the same obstacle.
Our first step was therefore to look beyond the refusal and identify the issue that needed to be resolved before the family could move forward.
We reviewed Minh’s birth certificate, his longstanding living arrangements with his mother and grandparents, the history of each parent’s involvement in his life and the available custody documents. Although Minh’s grandparents had shared responsibility for his day-to-day care, this did not automatically give them—or Mei—sole legal authority to decide whether Minh could relocate permanently to Australia.
Mei obtained appropriate family law advice in the country where Minh lived. There were two possible ways forward:
Rather than immediately commencing contested court proceedings, Mei first sought to resolve the issue directly and respectfully.
Minh’s father was provided with clear information about the proposed visa pathway, Minh’s future living arrangements and the arrangements that could be made for him to remain appropriately informed about Minh’s life.
Once the proposed arrangements and the legal effect of his consent were clearly explained, he agreed to support Minh’s migration.
Importantly, the consent was prepared to cover both temporary travel and permanent residence, rather than being limited to another short visit. Minh’s father completed Form 1229, Consent to grant an Australian visa to a child under the age of 18 years, and provided certified identity documentation showing his signature.
This resolved the issue that had led to the Visitor visa refusal and allowed the family to consider Minh’s proper long-term visa pathway.
By this stage, Mei had been granted her temporary Subclass 820 Partner visa, but her permanent Subclass 801 Partner visa had not yet been decided.
David initially believed that he could sponsor Minh directly for a Child visa because Minh was his stepchild. This was an understandable assumption. David was an Australian citizen, Minh was under 18 and they had developed a genuine family relationship.
However, the stepchild provisions are narrower than many families expect. An Australian citizen cannot necessarily sponsor the child of their current partner directly through the ordinary stepchild provisions.
After assessing the family’s circumstances and the stage of Mei’s Partner visa process, we identified the Subclass 445 Dependent Child visa as the more appropriate pathway.
The Subclass 445 visa is designed for the dependent child of a parent who holds a temporary Partner visa and is waiting for a decision on the permanent stage of their Partner visa process.
This pathway was particularly important because Mei’s permanent Subclass 801 visa had not yet been decided. Timing the application correctly was essential to preserving Minh’s ability to be added to his mother’s permanent Partner visa process.
We prepared Minh’s Subclass 445 application using Form 918 and brought together the evidence needed to explain both the family’s history and the resolution of the earlier consent problem.
The application included:
Because the Subclass 445 application was paper-based, it also had to be lodged using the correct form, in the prescribed manner and at the address specified under the applicable child visa instrument.
Minh’s Subclass 445 visa was granted, allowing him to travel to Australia and reunite with his mother.
Following the grant, the necessary steps were taken to add Minh to Mei’s permanent Partner visa application before the Department made a decision on her Subclass 801 visa.
For Mei, the outcome meant far more than the grant of another visa. It brought an end to a lengthy period of separation and allowed her son to become part of the home and future she had been building in Australia.
The result was achieved by addressing the matter in the right order:
Migration matters involving children often extend beyond completing a visa form. They can involve an overlap between migration law, parental responsibility, family arrangements, previous visa refusals and strict timing requirements.
Our role in this matter was to bring those issues together and provide the family with a clear pathway forward. That meant understanding why the earlier application had failed, recognising that another Visitor visa would not solve the problem, and ensuring that the consent evidence and visa strategy supported the family’s long-term objective.
At Heenan & Browne Visa and Migration Services, we understand that every family’s circumstances are different. Our approach is to identify the legal and practical issues early, explain the available options clearly and prepare the application around the family’s actual circumstances.
Sometimes the most valuable part of migration assistance is not simply lodging an application. It is identifying the right application to lodge—and resolving the issues that could otherwise prevent it from succeeding.
When a child under 18 has a non-migrating parent who retains parental responsibility, the Department will generally require evidence that the parent consents to the child being granted a visa or that the migrating parent has sole legal authority to decide where the child will live.
This requirement can apply even where the non-migrating parent has had limited involvement in the child’s upbringing or has not provided the child’s daily care. Practical care arrangements and legal parental responsibility are not always the same.
A Visitor visa refusal based on missing parental consent cannot ordinarily be fixed by simply lodging a stronger Visitor visa application. The family must first resolve the parental-responsibility issue.
Where agreement is possible, clear information and a properly documented arrangement may help the non-migrating parent provide informed consent. Where agreement cannot be reached, an appropriate court order may be required.
It is also important that any consent covers the intended purpose. Consent limited to a temporary visit may not be sufficient for a later visa involving permanent residence.
Finally, children should be fully disclosed in the parent’s original Partner visa application even if they cannot be included as migrating applicants at that time. Failure to declare a child can create serious difficulties when the family later seeks to bring them to Australia.
30 September, 2026
23 September, 2026
