Saved Money, but Lost a Child
by Michael J. Gurfinkel

Last year, a couple came to my office for a consultation. The husband was under petition by his employer as an RN, and the case was being handled by the company’s attorney. His petition had been approved in 2004 and they were waiting to adjust status in the U.S. They wanted to stick with their existing for their green cards, but then wanted our office to thereafter handle the processing of their child in the Philippines, who would be turning 21 in July 2007. We gave them a quotation on the anticipated prices, they thanked us, and went on their way.

We did not hear from them again until one week after their child’s 21st birthday, when they frantically returned to my office, advising that their child was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy on his 21st birthday, but was refused an immigrant visa because he had “aged out” (or already turned 21 year of age).

The couple explained that they had adjusted their status (or received their green cards) in January 2007. But rather than coming back to us, they decided to stick with the company’s attorney to handle the processing of their child, as it was “cheaper”. Although the attorney had more than seven months in which to process the child for his immigrant visa (from January to July 2007) he did not accomplish it in time. Also, I don’t understand why the attorney would have had the child’s interview scheduled on the child’s 21st birthday. (Had the interview been scheduled even one day before the 21st birthday, it could have been possible that the visa be issued and the child could have left for the US and arrived before midnight of his 21st birthday).

Unfortunately, because the father’s petition was filed after September 11, 2001, there was no extra 45 day “grace period” of the U.S.A. Patriotic Act. In addition, the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) did not apply to the child’s situation under current interpretations by the government. Therefore, it was so critical that the child be processed and arrive in America before his 21st birthday, and there had been more than seven months in which to accomplish it (which would have been plenty of time).

The distraught parents explained that they were just trying to “save money” by using the company’s attorney, rather than coming back to us for processing. But now their child is stuck in the Philippines for many years to come.

Now I am not trying to say that I could “guarantee” success if I was retained (as the parents initially planned), nor am I saying that I am the only attorney on earth who would be able to handle or process the case. My point is that when it comes to your children, price should not be your first or primary consideration. Instead, it should be the attorney’s track record of success. These parents thought that they were being smart by saving money. But now, in the process, they have lost their child, who must now remain in the Philippines.

Think about it: when these parents now go to a mall, Costco, Target, or outlets, what items can they possibly buy, (with the money they “saved”), that is worth the child that they left behind, trying to save that money? There is no price tag for the pain and tears of the child left behind.

Therefore, when it comes to something as important (and precious) as your children, don’t make price or cost your only factor. Just ask these parents who “saved” money, but “lost” their child.

Back to Main