Out of interest question

DUTR

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

The NRP can deny paternity and request a DNA test - that is his right, of course it is.

However, as soon as documentation is produced to prove paternity (and given to the NRP as proof should he have 'forgotton') then no DNA test would take place.

Quite why a NRP would be willing to pay for a second DNA test when it is clearly a fruitless and expensive exercise is beyond me...

The answer was already submitted earlier, as said, it is not about denying paternity it is qualifying the assumed paternity.
In answer to the latter part, the 1st dna test was not required, but was done just for the heck of it, the cost doesn't matter (as such) as it is not coming from the PWC or Child or the state.

I did ask a question earlier and no PWC has answered that , which was if there is no stigma etc, why 'worry' about taking a 'retest' as there is nothing to lose.

DX2

DUTR wrote: »

I did ask a question earlier and no PWC has answered that , which was if there is no stigma etc, why 'worry' about taking a 'retest' as there is nothing to lose.

I would have no problem re doing my paternity test, if the NRP wants to play childish games I say let them commence :rolleyes:

shell_542

I'm a NRPP and if I were a PWC and an NRP wanted to put me through the hassle of requesting a second paternity test then I'd do it. If they want to waste their money it's up to them.

LizzieS_2

Why would a nrp want to pay for the same test twice?

DUTR

LizzieS wrote: »

Why would a nrp want to pay for the same test twice?

Because they may have the right to do so, just as the PWC has the right to close and open a case :beer:

shell_542

DUTR wrote: »

Because they may have the right to do so, just as the PWC has the right to close and open a case :beer:

It's all good and well exercising your rights, but you have to weigh up the pros and cons. Is it worth exercising your rights when in the end, you are the only person who loses out?

The NRP would have to pay out approx £300 twice and would be in arrears with the CSA of a few months. Is that really worth it just to "exercise your rights"?

DUTR

shell_542 wrote: »

It's all good and well exercising your rights, but you have to weigh up the pros and cons. Is it worth exercising your rights when in the end, you are the only person who loses out?

The NRP would have to pay out approx £300 twice and would be in arrears with the CSA of a few months. Is that really worth it just to "exercise your rights"?

For some perhaps yes, just as closing and opening a case would leave the PWC without contribution for 13 weeks .
Looking at some of the replies in this thread it seems, some PWCs would not really want to go through the process of a retest again, not sure if it is because it maybe 'humiliating' or that they have little say in the matter
I have read all the replies with interest (even all be it this is a hypothetical topic).

shell_542

DUTR wrote: »

For some perhaps yes, just as closing and opening a case would leave the PWC without contribution for 13 weeks .
Looking at some of the replies in this thread it seems, some PWCs would not really want to go through the process of a retest again, not sure if it is because it maybe 'humiliating' or that they have little say in the matter
I have read all the replies with interest (even all be it this is a hypothetical topic).

A PWC normally opens and closes a case so that they benefit from the new rules.

A NRP would not benefit in the slightest from demanding a second DNA test. They'll just be £300 out of pocket.

Perhaps some PWCs do not like the idea of a retest because not only do they have to go through having another swab, so do their children. Perhaps their children are of an age where they understand what is going on. I can't imagine trying to expain to my (possible) 11 year old why he has to go to hospital and have a swab taken from his mouth because his Dad is denying that he is actually his son ... again.

Yes a PWC could perhaps lie to the child and not tell them the truth ... but to be completely honest, why should she? A child has a right to know what his/her parents are doing and putting them through. No she shouldn't badmouth the father but she can tell the child the truth.

I am a NRPP and if our PWC suddenly contacted the CSA and my hubby told me that he was going to dispute paternity AGAIN and wanted ANOTHER DNA test I would tell him to get stuffed. He isn't wasting our family money on something so pointless. Our children lose out from that as well.

I understand the exercising your rights DUTR. I completely agree with a man disputing paternity if he has real reason to believe his child may not be his. But this is just taking it to the extreme.

DUTR

shell_542 wrote: »

(snip)

I understand the exercising your rights DUTR. I completely agree with a man disputing paternity if he has real reason to believe his child may not be his. But this is just taking it to the extreme.

If you saw my daughter and saw me, you would know that DNA test was so not necessary, why did I opt for that? because I was not married to the Mum in a relationship or my name is not on the BC, was nothing to do with denying paternity . Indeed I was £200 lighter but the whole process was not on the terms of the PWC in my case , the delay was with them not submitting their sample in the meantime I was putting away what i needed to so the arrears were not a problem, the money for the test would have probably sat in the bank earning 0.1% gross interest anyways

shell_542

That was the first test.

But what would be the purpose of the second test, other than to just exercise your rights, and delay proceedings? You would then be another £200 out of pocket, nearer £300 when you factor in the fee of the person taking the swab.

BTW a DNA test fee is reduced if you're the second man to be tested. That worked in our favour lol not so great for the bloke who paid for the test privately, at full cost, approx £400 to be told the child he was led to believe for 8 months was his, wasn't.