SC: OFWs do not lose parental rights over children for being 'absent' | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d998c/d998c1524ae866bbfc56e1b62cdd0cb7fd561a9f" alt="dpo-dps-seal"
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC: OFWs do not lose parental rights over children for being 'absent'
SC: OFWs do not lose parental rights over children for being 'absent'
MANILA — The Supreme Court has stressed that an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) does not lose parental and custody rights over his or her children for working abroad and being “absent” at home.
MANILA — The Supreme Court has stressed that an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) does not lose parental and custody rights over his or her children for working abroad and being “absent” at home.
In a decision of the 2nd Division promulgated on July 22, 2024, the court denied the petition for certiorari filed by a father against his estranged wife.
In a decision of the 2nd Division promulgated on July 22, 2024, the court denied the petition for certiorari filed by a father against his estranged wife.
The court awarded the sole custody of the two minor children to the mother, with provisional custody given to the maternal grandmother.
The court awarded the sole custody of the two minor children to the mother, with provisional custody given to the maternal grandmother.
The case stemmed from the separation of the couple in 2017 after four years of marriage.
The case stemmed from the separation of the couple in 2017 after four years of marriage.
ADVERTISEMENT
The mother later moved to France for work and left the children under the father’s care.
The mother later moved to France for work and left the children under the father’s care.
When the mother later on learned that the father would leave their children with other people without her consent, she took the children and executed a notarized document naming her mother as the children’s guardian in her absence.
When the mother later on learned that the father would leave their children with other people without her consent, she took the children and executed a notarized document naming her mother as the children’s guardian in her absence.
The father then filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of their children, arguing that his former wife was “absent."
The father then filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of their children, arguing that his former wife was “absent."
The Regional Trial Court awarded the mother exclusive parental authority and permanent custody of the children, citing Article 220 of the Family Code.
The Regional Trial Court awarded the mother exclusive parental authority and permanent custody of the children, citing Article 220 of the Family Code.
In the mother’s absence, however, the RTC placed the children under the care of their grandmother and the father was only granted visitation rights.
In the mother’s absence, however, the RTC placed the children under the care of their grandmother and the father was only granted visitation rights.
The Court of Appeals then granted joint parental authority to both parents but the mother was granted sole custody and the maternal grandmother was granted provisional authority.
The Court of Appeals then granted joint parental authority to both parents but the mother was granted sole custody and the maternal grandmother was granted provisional authority.
“As applied here, the mere fact that a parent is an overseas Filipino worker does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
“As applied here, the mere fact that a parent is an overseas Filipino worker does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
The court said that between the maternal grandmother and the father, it is the former who can better give her full and undivided attention to the minor children and provide them with an environment most conducive to their development.
The court said that between the maternal grandmother and the father, it is the former who can better give her full and undivided attention to the minor children and provide them with an environment most conducive to their development.
The court chose the grandmother over the father, based on the “findings of fact” by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
The court chose the grandmother over the father, based on the “findings of fact” by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
“This is as opposed to the latter who was deemed unfit, being a habitual drinker and smoker, and who has previously exhibited violent tendencies,” the court said.
“This is as opposed to the latter who was deemed unfit, being a habitual drinker and smoker, and who has previously exhibited violent tendencies,” the court said.
As a last point, the court also stated that “all is not lost” for the father.
As a last point, the court also stated that “all is not lost” for the father.
“As the dire situation brought about by COVID-19 in the country has improved, petitioner is neither constrained nor deprived from continuing to exercise his visitation rights to nurture his bonds with his children,” the court said.
“As the dire situation brought about by COVID-19 in the country has improved, petitioner is neither constrained nor deprived from continuing to exercise his visitation rights to nurture his bonds with his children,” the court said.
RELATED VIDEO
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT