to still be annoyed by being questioned on whether my DS was MINE when flying - because we have different surnames?

[mojomama]

i really just need to 'park it' BUT - when recently flying with my 14month old, a jumped-up passport control bloke detained me and questioned "how do i know he's yours?", because my son has a different surname to me, and, after I'd being driven to the point of apoplexy, suggested, in future, i "travel with a letter from his father giving permission"!!!! What if his dad had passed away?! i was sooo cross, but he started to look like he wouldn't let me board so i calmed down enough to get past him - AIBU???

You might feel differently about that "permission" if you had an acrimonious split and your DH is from another country.

Permission is defined as approval, authorisation or consent. Are you arguing that parents shouldn't need consent or approval from a co parent to remove a child to a different country?

I don't think YABU, I think I would have been cross as well but I do now understand having read this thread why it is necessary to check.

I do not have the same name as my DH EXCEPT on my passport but this was because I thought if anything should happen while we were abroad it would make life easier to have the same name not becasue of passport control.

I agree with you also about the biometric passports. My DS2 has one and I had to send his birth certificate in which has the names of his parents on, surely this information is available at a simple scan? Also, as someone else said, what happened to the days when you used to be able to put your children on your passport?

My DS has a different name to mine, and once when we came back to the UK, an Immigration Official very politely pointed out that as our surnames were different, to carry his birth certificate with me, just in case I were ever asked to prove his identity.

I've been asked once more and it makes me happier feeling that perhaps our borders are more secure than they often appear to be.

This questioning is to try to prevent trafficking of babies/children. OP ask yourself, if your DS were abducted, wouldn't you be happy that whoever had him asked for additional proof?

Sorry, but if you aren't doing the maximum you can do to link your child to you for identification purposes, YABU.

I would like to think that the op wasn't questioned because of the different surnames and only assumed that. Surnames don't mean a thing! Any adult travelling alone with a child should be questioned.

I think children should be on one parent's passport and if not travelling with that parent then a single use 'travel pass' authorised by the passport office and the parent should suffice. Would this work?

OK so travelling alone with a child is suspect.... travelling with 2 people would be less so? Do abductors only work as singles??? Don't think so...

The childs passport should always be checked and the relationship between the child and the accompanying adults also.

The reason we are all forced to lash out £££ to get individual passports is precisely because there were no pictures of the DC listed in parents passports, and kids were being taken here there and everywhere.

A full passport and request of proof if names don't necessarily match has got to be better than the old system. How easy do you think it would be to fake a travel pass?

Hocuspontus makes a good point.

As I am married to DS's dad, we share the same surname. Recently DS and I flew abroad to see my dad. Not once was I asked if I had DH's permission to take him out of the country. Now I don't even wear my wedding rings (my rings shrunk when I had DS ),so it is entirely possible that I WAS taking him without permission.

I think the OP is being a bit U, but surely they should be checking all lone travelling parents, and not just singling out ones where the surname differs?

Grounhog - my DS looks nothing like his passport photo! Though you also make a good point about 2 abductors.
Gah! Why is everything so bloody complicated!
G

And yet, travelling from UK to Brussels and vice versa regularly over two years, I was never challenged about travelling alone with ds.

You're right! Why should it make any difference whatever the number of adults! A dad and his sister could be trying to take the son out of the country. They would all have the same name. Would they be questioned?

Very sensible post frogs.

Reading this thread with interest. DH and I are going on holiday to the US next summer, and will be taking with us DS (who has same surname), and DD1 and DD2 from my first marriage who don't have the same surname.

I can take their birth certificates (but it has my previous surname on it), so presume I also need to take my marriage certificate, as that is the document that shows my change of name?

I don't need exH's permission to take our DDs out of the country for a holiday according to this website - www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Legal+Advice/Child+law/contact/CanItakemychildabroad.htm

"Where the parent with whom the child lives does not have a residence order, he or she can take the child on holiday, but should inform the non-resident parent that he or she intends to do so. It is not necessary to obtain the non-resident parent's positive agreement, but the resident parent should carefully consider any reasonable objections, If the non-resident parent wishes to prevent the resident parent taking the child on holiday, he or she will need to apply for a court order."

but is it possible that we could be refused entry to the US without a letter of consent??

DDs are 14 and 12 and DD1 in particular strongly resembles me - so it is a bit different than a smaller child I guess?

Funnily enough when DH travelled with DS (then 1yr) to join me in Norway, he did get some gentle questioning about where Mum was, despite having the same surname..

Cosette, as I mentioned earlier, exp was told (by Canadian immigration, so I guess they should know) the US would not allow him in with ds without a letter of permission...

I think the biometric bit of the passport isnt about linking the info of parent to child but to do with facial recognition of the passport

I'm Irish and had this pointed out to me when bringing ds2 and ds4 back from the UK. I was a bit that it was because of surnames, in that case presumably I could abduct my niece and dh could abduct his without a problem.

I have different surnames from my children and passport from a different country to my children! I travel with them at least once a month. I am only asked 50% of the time if I have some sort of proof. I always say no and they always just tell me to bring proof next time.
I don't see the point as they just wave you through anyway and if I was a child abducter I would be sure to have a fake letter from the parents.

Megapixels and Edam, you are both splitting hairs on semantics, permission/consent/acknowledgment are all the same thing in a practical way in this case. Getting cross about the word someone uses to describe a letter does you and them an injustice. I would be pretty certain that, should a customs official stop you and ask to see your permission letter, turning around and saying "We parent together, so I don't need permission from my OH, I have an acknowledgment letter" will get you dealt with in a fairly short handed manner. And deservedly so IMO.

Does anyone know what information is stored on the chip in the passport? Seems to me that it would be possible to have this information as when DCs got their British passports, had my name on their long form birth certificate (with different surname)

My mother and sister took my DS1 on a mini cruise and were detained on the way home as they did not have a letter from me or his dad to say they could take him out of the country!! My sister pointed out they were hardly likely to be kidnapping him in to the country,

It is worth the hassle if it stops parents taking children over seas in a custody fight

We have different surnames in our family. I would just be pleased that the passport chap was doing his job. If a bit of irritation saves one DC, then it is worth it.

I don't think I am splitting hairs, actually, the use of 'permission' reveals a strain of thinking to which I object. Dh doesn't need my permission* to do anything, and neither do I require his.

*Although now inspired by this thread I might start thinking in those terms... next time he wants to cover the house in Halloween decorations that he STILL hasn't taken down, do you think I could refuse permission?

All very interesting about the potential abduction issue. However unless it is a legal requirement to have a letter or other document to travel alone with a child then surely you shouldn't have to have one. It either is a legal requirement or isn't - it shouldn't be up to the immigration officer to decide depending on how they feel that day.

Also, I am quite surprised that although your son has your surname as his middle name (as do mine) that this wasn't seen as some more positive link of the child to you. Odd.

YABU - he was doing his job.

I think its a good thing but - as others have said - also think that immigration in all countries should be more consistent in their approach. Surname or relationship to the child proves nothing - parents often 'abduct' their own children after relationship breakdowns. My father took my brother after he and my mum broke up - bloody devastating stuff.

We have just come back from Canada and our 3 DD's were all asked to identify themselves and gently chatted to, to (I assumed) gauge if they were who their passports said they were and that there were no problems with the trip. I thought that was a very positive thing.

Info here on what's contained on the microchip on biometric passports. Apart from facial characteristics, there's no more biographical information than is printed on the passport - so it doesn't provide a family tree giving details of parents etc.

As someone else pointed out a while ago, there are two sets of issues here - establishing the child's identity and the relationship between the child and the adult taking them abroad and checking that the child is not being abducted.

Sorry if it's been mentioned but why would a birth certicate prove anything seeing as anyone can buy them for a few pounds?