Child Visa 802 Sponsorship and Registrable Offences in 2026: what the law requires
What the Child visa (Subclass 802) rules require when a sponsor or their partner has a pending registrable offence charge or a conviction.
A pending charge for a registrable offence does not leave anything to argue about. As set out on the Department of Home Affairs' official Child visa (Subclass 802) page, as at August 2026, where the sponsor or the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner has such a charge outstanding, the Department "will refuse the sponsorship and visa application". A conviction is handled differently but remains narrow: sponsorship "can only be approved in very limited circumstances". Those two sentences decide most files in this area, and the rest of the application hangs off them.
Two features make the rule bite harder than people expect. The screening is not confined to the parent whose citizenship or permanent visa founds the application — it also reaches the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner. And an approved sponsorship is a precondition to grant rather than a formality processed alongside the visa: under clause 802.226 of the Migration Regulations 1994, the sponsorship must have been approved and still be in effect when the application is decided. There is no version of this visa in which a refused sponsorship and a granted visa coexist.
Who does this screening actually cover?
Most children applying for Subclass 802 need a sponsor, who must be an eligible parent or that parent's spouse or de facto partner, although clause 802.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 also allows the application to be supported by a letter of support from a State or Territory government welfare authority instead, in which case clause 802.226A removes the usual sponsorship requirement. The eligible parent is the person the child depends on — an Australian citizen, an eligible New Zealand citizen or an Australian permanent visa holder — and the child can be their biological, adopted or stepchild. Clause 802.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 adds the mechanics: the sponsor must be at least 18, and must be either the citizen, permanent visa holder or eligible New Zealand citizen referred to in clause 802.212(1)(a), or that person's spouse or de facto partner.
Because the sponsor does not have to be the parent themselves, the person bringing an Australian migration interest to the file is not necessarily the person whose record is examined. Suppose an applicant depends on their mother, who is an Australian citizen, while the person put forward to sponsor is the mother's de facto partner. That partner's pending registrable offence charge falls squarely within the official wording — the page refers to the sponsor "and/or their spouse or de facto partner (if any)" — and it defeats the sponsorship even though it has nothing to do with the child's own history.
Pending charge or conviction: what does each one actually produce?
The distinction is not about guilt. It is about which of two consequences attaches. A pending charge attracts a stated refusal of both the sponsorship and the visa. A conviction attracts a rule that leaves a residual, exceptional capacity to approve. What counts as a registrable offence is itself defined in the Migration Regulations 1994 — the relevant provision is regulation 1.20KB — so the trigger is a legislative category, not a judgement about whether the offending looked serious at the time or how it was characterised in the state or territory where it arose.
| Situation | What the official page says | Effect on sponsorship | Effect on the visa application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pending registrable offence charge held by the sponsor and/or their spouse or de facto partner | "we will refuse the sponsorship and visa application" | Refused | Refused |
| Registrable offence conviction held by the sponsor and/or their spouse or de facto partner | "we can only approve the sponsorship in very limited circumstances" | Approval possible only in limited circumstances | Cannot be granted unless the sponsorship is approved |
Readers should treat this article as general information rather than advice on an individual case: whether a particular offence is registrable, and what sits inside those "very limited circumstances", turns on facts measured against the legislation and the official publications as they stand. The Department publishes further detail on measures for the protection of children on a separate page, reached from the 802 page, and that material — together with the current version of the Regulations — is where the detail should be confirmed. Separately from the eligibility outcome, the Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) guidance describes these sponsorship matters as being referred for specialist character assessment by VACCU, which is a process step rather than a second chance at the same test.
If the sponsorship is refused, can the visa still be granted?
No. The official page puts it bluntly: "We must approve the sponsorship before the visa can be granted." Clause 802.226 reinforces it at decision time by requiring the sponsorship to have been approved and to remain in effect. Nothing in the structure gives the visa an independent life, so an argument that the child's own circumstances are compelling cannot substitute for an approved sponsorship. Whether any review right attaches to a refusal, and by when an application for review must be made, is stated in the decision record itself.
Does clearing the sponsorship clear the visa?
No — the sponsorship limb only deals with the sponsor's criminal history. The child must still satisfy the visa criteria in their own right, and several of those criteria carry the same child protection logic by a different route. An applicant under 18 needs consent to migrate: either the written consent of everyone who can legally decide where they live, or the law of the home country permitting departure, or consistency with any Australian child order covering the child. The Department may also decline to grant where doing so would not be in the best interests of an applicant under 18. On top of that, an applicant aged 16 or over must meet the character requirement, which is a separate test from anything asked of the sponsor, together with the health requirement and the rule that any debt owed to the Australian Government must be repaid or formally arranged. Adopted, stepchild and older-applicant cases add their own dependency and study conditions.
Is there a sponsorship route that avoids this problem entirely?
There is a different route, though it changes who takes responsibility for the child rather than relaxing the policy. Clause 802.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 permits a letter of support from an Australian State or Territory government welfare authority instead of sponsorship by a person, and clause 802.226A then disapplies clauses 802.221 to 802.226, including the requirement for an approved sponsorship, where such support is provided. In policy guidance this pathway is framed around children needing protection, with the application made while the child is under 18, and the support letter must meet the requirements set for it, including details of the authority's involvement and continuing involvement. Because a government welfare authority decides whether to take the case up, it is not a like-for-like replacement for ordinary sponsorship and not a workaround for the registrable offence rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a charge count if it has not been heard yet?
Yes. The official Child visa (Subclass 802) page refers to a "pending registrable offence charge", so the trigger is an unresolved charge rather than a finding of guilt. The stated outcome is refusal of both the sponsorship and the visa application.
My partner's charge is the problem, not mine — does that matter?
Yes. The rule covers the sponsor "and/or their spouse or de facto partner (if any)", so a pending registrable offence charge against either person defeats the sponsorship even when the other has no record at all. This is why the identity of the sponsor and any current partner relationship has to be settled before an application is lodged.
How is a conviction treated differently from a pending charge?
A pending charge brings a stated refusal of the sponsorship and the visa. A conviction leaves a narrower position, in which sponsorship "can only be approved in very limited circumstances". Either way, a visa cannot be granted without an approved sponsorship.
How do I know whether an offence is a "registrable offence"?
Whether an offence is registrable is determined by the Migration Regulations 1994, at regulation 1.20KB, not by how serious the charge seemed or how it was dealt with locally. It is a defined category rather than ordinary language, so the specific offence has to be matched against that definition and the Department's published child protection material.
If the sponsorship is refused, can the child still get the visa?
No. The official page says sponsorship must be approved before the visa can be granted, and clause 802.226 requires the sponsorship to be approved and still in effect when the application is decided. A refusal of the sponsorship therefore removes the pathway to a grant, whatever else the application contains.
Does a clean sponsor mean the child will be granted the visa?
No. The child must meet the visa criteria independently, including the character requirement if aged 16 or over, the health requirement, the consent to migrate rules for applicants under 18, and the best interests of the child test. The sponsorship rules deal only with the sponsor's offending history.
What if no suitable parent can sponsor because of a registrable offence?
The Regulations allow a State or Territory government welfare authority to support the application with a letter of support instead of a personal sponsor, after which clause 802.226A disapplies the usual sponsorship requirements. That depends on a government authority taking the case up, and policy guidance frames the pathway around children needing protection, so it does not replace ordinary sponsorship on demand.