Consent to Migrate: Who Must Agree Before a Child Gets the 117 Visa in 2026?
Who must give written consent before a child can be granted the Orphan Relative (subclass 117) visa, and the three ways that rule can be met.
A child under 18 can only be granted the Orphan Relative visa (subclass 117) if one of three things is true: everyone who can legally decide where the child lives has given written consent to the migration; the law of the child's home country allows the child to leave that country; or the move is consistent with any Australian child order about the child. This is the position published on the Australian Department of Home Affairs' Orphan Relative visa (subclass 117) page as at August 2026. For a sponsor, the practical work almost always sits in the first route, because it requires identifying every person who holds that legal authority — not simply whoever has been feeding and housing the child.
Is consent to migrate the same test as "no parent who can care for them"?
No. They are two separate criteria on the same page, and both have to be satisfied.
The orphan relative test looks at the parents: the visa will not be granted unless the child has no parent who can care for them, because both parents are deceased, permanently incapable of caring for the child, or cannot be found. The department's page is explicit that a child whose parents are capable of caring for them but choose not to will not qualify.
The consent test looks at who has legal authority over the child's residence today. A child can have no parent able to care for them and still be subject to the authority of a guardian, a relative appointed by a court, or a child protection authority. That is why the two questions are asked separately, and why a complete answer to the parent question does not close the consent question.
Who counts as everyone who can legally decide where the child lives?
The department's page does not publish a list of categories, and there is no single document that names them. The test is legal authority to determine where the child lives. In practice that can mean a parent who still holds parental responsibility, a court-appointed guardian, a person named in a residence or care order, or a state or child protection authority where a care order is in force. It can be more than one person, and those people do not have to live in the same country as the child, or in the same country as each other.
This is the part of the criterion that sponsors most often get wrong. Day-to-day care is not the same as legal authority. A grandparent, aunt or older sibling who has raised a child for years may have no legal power to decide the child's residence, while someone who has had little contact with the child may still hold it. Where the authority is unclear, the question is decided by the law that applies to the child, which is why this article is general information about published criteria rather than advice about any one child's situation; a specific consent position can turn on foreign law and on court orders, so the official pages and a qualified professional remain the final reference.
Do I need all three routes, or just one?
Just one. The department frames them as alternatives, and the table below sets out what each one turns on.
| Route | What has to be true | What it usually turns on |
|---|---|---|
| Written consent | Every person who can legally decide where the child lives has consented in writing to the child migrating to Australia | Identifying each person with that authority, and showing the consent is genuinely theirs |
| Home country law | The laws of the child's home country allow the child to leave that country | The exit and removal rules that apply to the child where they live |
| Australian child order | The migration is consistent with any Australian child order about the child | The residence and contact terms of the order itself |
Satisfying one route does not remove the rest of the criteria. The orphan relative test, sponsorship approval, health, character, debts to the Australian Government and the best interests of the child all still apply.
What does written consent have to cover?
The page requires the consent to be written; it does not prescribe a template. What matters is that the document can be traced to each person who holds the authority, that it is clearly about this child migrating to Australia, and that the decision maker can be satisfied it is genuine. Where a person's authority comes from a court order or an appointment, evidence of that authority is part of the same picture, because a signature from someone without legal standing does not meet the criterion.
Procedural guidance summaries of the department's own manual describe interviews with the Australian relative and other interested parties as a discretionary step in this visa, and note that decision makers weigh other credible and relevant evidence where official documents are hard to obtain. The official visa page remains the authority on what the criteria actually require.
Sponsorship signatures and consent signatures are not the same thing
Sponsors sometimes treat Form 40CH as if it covers the consent question. It does not. The sponsorship is a separate requirement: the child must be sponsored by an eligible sibling or step-sibling, grandparent or step-grandparent, aunt, uncle, step-aunt or step-uncle, and the department must approve that sponsorship before the visa can be granted. Where the sponsor or their spouse or de facto partner has a pending registrable offence charge, the department states it will refuse both the sponsorship and the visa application.
Consent, by contrast, comes from whoever can decide the child's residence. One person can be both sponsor and consenting party; often they are not the same set of people at all.
What if a parent is dead, permanently incapable, or missing?
This is the overlap between the two tests. The department asks for evidence that no parent can care for the child, in the form of a death certificate or other official document, or a medical report showing why the parents are unable to care for them. Where parents cannot be found, it asks for evidence of how long they have been missing and what efforts have been made to contact or find them.
That evidence also explains why a parent's signature may be impossible. It does not by itself satisfy the consent criterion. The application still has to rest on one of the three routes — usually written consent from whoever does hold authority, or the home country law route, or consistency with an Australian child order.
How does an Australian child order change the analysis?
An Australian child order is one of the three routes, not an override of the others. The test is whether the migration is consistent with the order about the child. An order that requires the child to live with a named person in another country, or that restricts removal from a jurisdiction, will not sit comfortably with a permanent move to Australia. An order that places residence with the sponsoring relative, or that permits relocation, will read very differently.
Where the underlying order was made overseas, the Australian Attorney-General's Department publishes material on the registration of overseas child orders, which is the mechanism the department's own page points to. Registration and the visa assessment are different processes: registration gives an overseas order standing, while the visa decision still turns on whether the proposed move fits within the order's terms.
Does the consent question extend to the child's own children?
It can. A 117 application can include the child's dependent children, and they can be added any time before a decision is made.
Compilations of the Migration Regulations 1994 attach parental consent criteria (PIC 4015 and 4016) to family members under 18 who apply as secondary applicants, and welfare arrangement criteria (PIC 4017 and 4018) to a main applicant who is under 18. Those clause numbers and their current wording should be confirmed against the official register, since the department's public visa page is the controlling statement of what applicants are asked to meet.
How the application is actually lodged
Subclass 117 is a paper application, made outside Australia. The child must be outside Australia both when the application is made and when the decision is made. The two forms — Form 47CH for the child and Form 40CH for the sponsorship — are lodged together by post or courier with the Child and Other Family Processing Centre in Perth, and the application charge must be paid before the application is posted. Applications lodged at another office, or in another way, are not valid.
Two timing points matter for sponsors. Do not arrange travel for the child until the department advises in writing that the visa has been granted. And note that the application fee is not refunded if the application is refused.
Where consent sits alongside best interests
The department may refuse the visa if granting it would not be in the best interests of an applicant under 18. Consent evidence and best interests overlap in practice: a migration that a person with legal authority has not agreed to, or that contradicts an Australian child order, is unlikely to present well on either test. Conversely, documented consent from the right people, supported by clear evidence of who holds authority, does most of the work on both.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who exactly has to sign the consent for a 117 visa?
Every person who can legally decide where the child lives has to consent in writing. The department's page does not list the categories, so the set is determined by who holds legal authority over the child's residence under the law that applies to them, not by who is currently caring for the child.
Is a letter from the relative who has been raising the child enough?
Only if that relative is one of the people who can legally decide where the child lives. Long-term care and legal authority are different things, and a signature from someone without legal standing does not meet the criterion.
What if one parent is missing and genuinely cannot be found?
The department asks for evidence of how long the parent has been missing and what efforts were made to contact or find them, as part of showing that no parent can care for the child. The consent criterion still has to be met through one of the three published routes.
Do I still need written consent if the child's home country allows them to leave?
The three routes are alternatives, so the home country law route can stand on its own. It does not remove the orphan relative test, the sponsorship requirement, health and character, or the best interests assessment.
Does an Australian child order replace the need for written consent?
It is a separate route rather than a replacement, and the test is whether the migration is consistent with the order. An order that keeps the child's residence with someone else, or restricts removal from a jurisdiction, is unlikely to be consistent with a permanent move to Australia.
Can the child travel to Australia while the application is being processed?
No. The department advises not to arrange travel until it has advised in writing that the visa has been granted, and the child must be outside Australia when the decision is made for the visa to be granted.
Is the consent requirement the same for the child's own children?
Consent-related and welfare-related criteria apply to under-18 family members included in the application, according to compilations of the Migration Regulations 1994. Confirm the current clause wording against the official register, since the department's public visa page is the controlling statement of the criteria.