Fathers surname

sjaypink

it is not the case now that you have to 'prove', as pipkin says, for many there would be no proof.

i do think this is a good thing or those affected- but of course, as with everything- it gets out that this can be done and then it is abused.

pipkin71

sjaypink wrote: »

it is not the case now that you have to 'prove', as pipkin says, for many there would be no proof.

i do think this is a good thing or those affected- but of course, as with everything- it gets out that this can be done and then it is abused.

That's the sad part of it, isn't it - that it can be abused. DV, like disability, isn't something you would want people to pretend about

I can see why it's a good thing that it's no longer necessary to have proof, but the fact it is now open to abuse isn't such a great thing imo.

Damzel_In_Distress

Yes it can be abused that is why i said its seems a bit daft to me..but you dont have to prove anything-you just have to say you feel there is a threat of either physical or mental violence if the father is named.
It can be abused and im sure often is...and failing that you can just say you dont know who the father is,even when you do and get away with it that way :eek:

krisskross

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

Yes it can be abused that is why i said its seems a bit daft to me..but you dont have to prove anything-you just have to say you feel there is a threat of either physical or mental violence if the father is named.
It can be abused and im sure often is...and failing that you can just say you dont know who the father is,even when you do and get away with it that way :eek:

But why wouldn't you want the father of the child to pay for support of his child? I can understand the violence part but what other possible reasons could there be?

I know I am old fashioned but would hate to say I didn't know who the father of my child was, apart obviously from rape. But in that case I would have taken the morning after pill so hopefully the situation would not arise.

Damzel_In_Distress

Well i dont do that,and the DWP are aware of my sons fathers contributions.
So if your asking me directly why i cant answer you really

The only thing i can think of is that if you dont name the father and then the father still pays his maintenance directly to you in cash ..then you are getting more money?? :eek:

krisskross

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

Well i dont do that,and the DWP are aware of my sons fathers contributions.
So if your asking me directly why i cant answer you really

The only thing i can think of is that if you dont name the father and then the father still pays his maintenance directly to you in cash ..then you are getting more money?? :eek:

I wasn't really asking you directly, just musing really.So you think it is probably just about getting more money?

Damzel_In_Distress

krisskross wrote: »

I wasn't really asking you directly, just musing really.So you think it is probably just about getting more money?

Well its the only logical thing that makes sence really i cant think of another reason...??

If i didnt tell them about my sons father then i would have a full IS payment of £60 pw PLUS £20 ....which is £80 a week before you even include CB and CTC ...so i would technically have more money..:rolleyes: shame im so honest lol..should of thought of this before :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The thing is if they do get caught,or someone reports them they will get in alot of trouble and proberly end up with nothing,so its really not worth the risk IMO

sjaypink

krisskross wrote: »

I wasn't really asking you directly, just musing really.So you think it is probably just about getting more money?

well yeah, dont no how it works now, but up until very recently you could keep the first £10 of declared maintanence.

so, father says he'll pay £30 pw cash. you tell social, you get i.s + £10 maintenance pw.

tell the social dv/ dont know the dad, and you get i.s + £30 pw cash from father.

Damzel_In_Distress

sjaypink wrote: »

well yeah, dont no how it works now, but up until very recently you could keep the first £10 of declared maintanence.

so, father says he'll pay £30 pw cash. you tell social, you get i.s + £10 maintenance pw.

tell the social dv/ dont know the dad, and you get i.s + £30 pw cash from father.

Exactly :rolleyes: the thing is its not worth it,cause what these people dont realise is that your more than likely to get caught eventually...and 80% of the time theyve got the father named on the birth certificate and it comes back to haunt them years later in the form of a big bill

happymumto2

Damzel_In_Distress wrote: »

Yes it can be abused that is why i said its seems a bit daft to me..but you dont have to prove anything-you just have to say you feel there is a threat of either physical or mental violence if the father is named.
It can be abused and im sure often is...and failing that you can just say you dont know who the father is,even when you do and get away with it that way :eek:

It does seem a bit strange you don't have to prove it for these circumstances, yet if you attempt to get council housing to escape a violent partner you are asked for proof. And even when handed the proof (details of court cases and convictions for the abuse), they put me in a hell hole for 8 weeks with 2 kids and then sent me back to the jointly owned house because my name was on the deeds so I had made myself intentionally homeless.
There should be systems in place whereby the father has to pay but the mothers details are kept anymous for her protection, rather than a person being able to just say there is violence in order to avoid him being claimed from.
I don''t claim, he knows where I live and I know what would happen to me, so in effect he got away with beating me and gets away without providing for our son.