To wonder what being over 40 has got to do with it?

[dratsea]

"We also note that at the time of (ds’s) birth, (dw) was over the age of 40. Where the mother is over the age of 40 at the time of the child's birth, it is departmental policy to request medical evidence of the birth.

Medical evidence may include, but is not limited to: doctor's letters, sonograms, discharge papers etc.

You may scan and email this to me.

Yours sincerely

K C*

Determinations Officer
for Secretary for Internal Affairs"

(In NZ)

Huh? Who wants that info and why?

Sounds like bull to me. And it sounds very discriminatory re age! Ageist.

Many women over 40 give birth these days!

What? Is this for immigration or something? It sounds very odd!

Clearly 40 is considered old lady time by whoever it is :/

(46 and wishing old lady time would hurry up)

Derek it defaults to high risk but doesn't have to remain so. It sounds like an immigration thing assuming that a percentage of over 40s might illegally adopt a baby from overseas because they're more likely to have trouble conceiving and be better off to afford surrogacy or private adoption.

Is this historical? Before single parents were common, it wasn't that unusual for grandparents to pass off a grandchild from an unmarried daughter, as their own child.

What is the context?

They want proof your dwebsite is your ds'a biological mother. Over 35 years is medically classed as "older" in maternity/obs&gynae when having children.

Dw not dwebsite!

So google tells me that NZ determination officers deal with immigration.

Are you moving to NZ op? I can see no reason why medical evidence of a birth is required over 40 - given birth post age 40 is fairly common now.

A birth certificate of the child would show who the parents are anyway - if they're concerned about some kind of bc fraud then they should be asking everyone for medical evidence of birth, not just those over 40.

No idea...very strange!

If your dw and dc have access to free medical care in nz, they could be sussing out their current health requirements.

I think she means just to register the birth, looking at what that office is responsible for. That's pretty bad.

Bear in mind the time difference. If it's 2015 in the UK it's still 1975 in New Zealand and giving birth in your 40s is very bizarre..

AnyoneButSanta

Yes, application for citizenship by descent and a passport. Both Auz and NZ are expensive to visit on a working visa. In a couple of years I expect ds will want to do a bit of travelling, perhaps a gap year and with a black passport he could, for example, do a winter season in Queenstown and fund himself working in a bar.

Headmelt "proof dw is mother of ds" Well that is what it says on his birth certificate, which they have. Not sure about medical care, I still have to pay but it was slightly cheaper once I got a Kiwi passport.

Summer dw is spitting mad, demands I reply in no uncertain terms and point out to the department of internal affairs that her age at time of birth has nothing to do with the price of fish. tbh I thought MN a good place to find a suitably withering reply.

AnyoneButSanta Too true, that is why my parents took me back to UK as soon as I could crawl but it is getting better. My mum used to tell me all sorts of tales of deprivation, and they were in Wellington, but it was just after the war, rationing still in place in UK and they were young and idealistic. Here at the moment, still outnumbered 10 to 1 by sheep but in the bigger hamlets towns the shops stay open at midday, not all close early on a Wednesday and they even have some supermarkets that open on a Sunday! Just don't expect to get your hair cut on a Saturday!

We were looking at moving to Australia a few years ago and the criteria and restrictions were very strict, didn't go after all. It will be a great advantage to your ds to have dual citizenship. Could you ask why the information is required?

If you want your ds to get his citizenship papers then you have to comply I'm afraid, no matter how stupid or discriminatory you think the officials are.

I can understand the temptation to kick off but I'd really avoid sending a withering reply as it could jeopardize your son's application.

We had an application rejected once (by Canadian immigration officials, but I'm sure NZ is no different) for not putting an end date on a recent time period (for the job I was currently employed in and that I expected to be employed in for the foreseeable future). It led to a six month delay and a reapplication fee

Probably a situation where law hasn't kept up with modern life.

We had similar where I worked (we paid out family benefits) but IIRC our age was '45'. It was to 'be sure' that the mother/claimant had indeed given birth to the child. When the laws were formulated (when the earth was cooling) it was rare that someone had a baby at that age, so law required they provide 'extra proof' that they had given birth (as opposed to stealing a child, I suppose).

nooka helpful advice, might be why I am on here and not expostulating as instructed by dw replying to internal affairs. Given that dw has biochemical proof that she will never menstruate again it will probably be safe to send a reply, but agree, only once ds has his black passport. Still looking for the killer line. AF wherefore art thou?

I think it's about genetic problems and additional needs. They are notorious for not wanting to accept those who will basically needs funding.
I went through this one stage removed with a friend with a child with mild global developmental delay. They had to wait to emigrate until he was 'caught up'. Now thriving - just slower thru those early milestones. Despite the dad being headhunted they would have blocked the whole family.

As nooka says....it doesn't really matter why.
You just have to comply with whatever rules are stipulated to make the immigration run smoothly.
Asking on MN is going to get a lot of speculative answers.
My DH had to have extra X-rays taken and seen by another doctor before he was allowed in to NZ. Turned out the first interpretation was correct (as we knew) but arguing would have caused delay and stress. Sure, it cost us more money but going by their rules meant everything went to plan and time.
Good luck

OP why is coming to NZ on a working visa expensive? If DS is under 30 then I don't believe it costs anything for the working visa. If you are a citizen of a visa waiver country that is.
your DS could work for 12 out of 24 months I believe.

And NZ has made it into the new millennium

Most visitors get three months, but you need to have a return ticket. They are really kind to holders of UK passports (might extend to Canada too) and Brits get six months. I arrived on UK passport, was applying for extension beyond the 6 months and very helpful immigrations officer noticed born in Wellington, that this is the Wellington in NZ?, he pointed out that a passport is 1/3 of cost of renewing a visa. Under 30 working holiday visa is also 23/12 rather than a year if from UK or Canada. It is the cheapest visa (NZ$165) but still more than a passport, ok add citizenship by descent fee and it costs more but that is a one off fee and he can come back whenever he wishes and stay as long as wishes. And rules may change. I could have had a black passport if I had applied (60 yrs ago) before age 18 but at 25 could only keep it if I renounced UK citizenship. If ds born after 2005 different rules and he would not get citizenship. Only posting this to share in case it gets picked up on a search.

But I guess you also have both, do you prefer the red or the black? Just aesthetically? Oh and where is the Webb Ellis Cup?