子女签证 offshore 分为5种，一般我们中国人用的就是4种。
1 child visa (101)
2 Orphan relative (117)
3 Adoption (102)
4 Dependent child visa (445)
如果是担保自己小孩，当然是101， 如果是担保收养的小孩，（可以是101收养的时候不是Pr 也可能是102）（收养的时候是Pr ）
目前移民局手头积压3600个case , 每年大概可以申请3000个左右，拒签率11.3%
4. 必须持续学习不能有超过6个月 或者reasonable 时间的学习空档期。
must not be engaged in full time work: and (except in the case of applicants who are incapacitated for work) since turning 18 or within 6 months or a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of year 12 in the Australian school system, been undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution leading to the award of a professional, trade or vocational qualification.
很多移民官和移民代理都忽略了这个reasonable time 的选项。认为超过6个月的空档期，子女就无法加入父母的配偶签证。实际上在2005年Sok v MIMIA  FMCA 190 at . 这法庭判决中 法官 Reithmuller FM， 认为这个reasonable time 是个情景词汇，需要考虑当时的具体情况比如空档期的长度，在空档期的活动等等。
In determining what is a ‘reasonable time’ within the meaning of this subclause consideration of the surrounding circumstances including the actual time involved, what activities were undertaken during that time, the purpose for which those activities were undertaken and, if no relevant activities were undertaken, the reason why would be relevant: Sok v MIMIA  FMCA 190 at .
所以只要申请人子女空档期有活动和持续学习相关，比如做学校申请，考IELTS，都是可以作为考虑reasonable time 的理由来满足802.214 和父母一起移民的
这6个月的时间和reasonable 时间的考虑是否必须是紧接这12年级之后的,不同的member 有不同的看法，TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Mary Cameron 在1401894  MRTA 323 (6 March 2015)
中认为，这个reasonable time 可以不必紧接12年级学习。
In this case, the applicant has not undertaken more than one course at a time. Each course she has undertaken has been leading to the award of a single professional, trade or vocational qualification in the business field. Therefore, the facts of this case can be distinguished from the facts of Sok. The requirement is further qualified by Reithmuller FM’s comments that clause 101.213 (or clause 802.214) might well extend to cover courses at alternative institutions (at paragraph 16) and consideration must be given to the course taken ‘in order to prepare for the vocational course ultimately pursued’ (at paragraph 25).
Departmental policy (PAM 3) also states that ‘the criterion does not require the study to be for a first qualification. Further studies (eg graduate diploma) are acceptable’. The Tribunal has also had regard to Reithmuller FM’s comments in Sok that ‘the condition contemplates the extent to which it is reasonable for a parent to support a child until they obtain a ‘professional trade or vocational qualification’ and, ipso facto, are able to support themselves.’(at paragraph 24).
In light of the above factors, the Tribunal considers that in some circumstances, applicants who have changed full time courses are still able to satisfy the provisions of clause 802.214
但是另一位TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Dr Hannah McGlade 在1408333  MRTA 343 (4 March 2015) 认为这个6个月和reasonable time 必须紧接着12年级后考虑。”The review applicant submits that the break in 2010 – 2011 was a reasonable one in the circumstances of the claimed financial barriers. The tribunal considers that cl.101.213(1)(c) is limited to an assessment of whether a break is reasonable in relation to the period following the completion of high school. In this case, there was no break from high school. The issue in this matter concerns a break that happened subsequently after the applicant turned 18 years (and finished her studies at Imus College). The tribunal is not authorised by cl.101.213(1)(c) to consider the reasonableness or otherwise of the break in studies that occurred in this case, as it did not occur in the relevant period (that is, following high school).”