SC: OFWs do not lose parental rights over children for being 'absent' | ABS-CBN

ADVERTISEMENT

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'

Adrian Ayalin,

ABS-CBN News

Clipboard

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.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

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.

“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 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.

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.

RELATED VIDEO



ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.