CSA, non-resident father....nightmare UPDATE!

emsywoo123

Hi all, thoughts appreciated on this.

I have a 7 years old DD and 9 week old DS. I am a single mum.

Long story, but DS's father sees him once a week here for an hour. He originally said I had to let him see him when he wanted and without restriction or nothing at all. I let him calm down for a couple of weeks, then offered this weekly hour to let them build some sort of relationship.

He then offered maintenance, but could not agree on an amount (I went along lines of 15% net, same as CSA) He did not believe I would get it, as he is not named on cert, so told me to go to CSA and try to get it that way.

He has now said, as I did this, he will be taking me court to get more access to DS. He will try to make my life hell, I did offer to withdraw CSA claim, as I do not feel I could cope with it all, but he said that it was too late and he would see me in court.

My question is, does anyone know what sort of access he is likely to be granted? I am sorry if this seems disjointed or makes no sense, but have been awake all night with worry.

Viper_7

It's not his access, it's the right of the child to see him.

If he is not abusive or not a threat then the child can have 50% contact with him, including overnight stays.

It's the child's right to see his father, and that's the route the courts will take, but there was many factors they consider but the main one is what is best for the child.

emsywoo123

Viper_7 wrote: »

It's not his access, it's the right of the child to see him.

If he is not abusive or not a threat then the child can have 50% contact with him, including overnight stays.

It's the child's right to see his father, and that's the route the courts will take, but there was many factors they consider but the main one is what is best for the child.

Sorry just realised the totally salient fact that he is an alcoholic, I forget this is anonymous and people won't know what I know

He works full time and DS is 9 weeks old.

DUTR

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Sorry just realised the totally salient fact that he is an alcoholic, I forget this is anonymous and people won't know what I know

He works full time and DS is 9 weeks old.

Darling as the previous poster says , it is about the child's rights not the parents, how come the fact that he is an alcoholic makes him not good enough to have his time with the child, yet it did not matter that he was an alcoholic when you made the baby or want CS contributions.

Anyways access and CS are not linked, however the courts are leaning favourably on access to the child, they can often see through vexatious slander from the PWC.
I thought nowadays the father has to be named on the BC, certainly father have parental rights automatically since 2003 I understand.

clairec79

If you are breastfeeding then no court will make you stop and enforce overnight visits etc. However they may let him take the baby out - I have a baby 3 weeks older than yours and I couldn't cope with someone taking him away from me for more than an hour or so

Mojisola

emsywoo123 wrote: »

He has now said, as I did this, he will be taking me court to get more access to DS. He will try to make my life hell, I did offer to withdraw CSA claim, as I do not feel I could cope with it all, but he said that it was too late and he would see me in court.

If he has made these threats via texts or emails, make sure you keep them safe. If it's all verbal, get a digital recorder so that you can keep a record of future conversations and phone calls. It will affect his position in court if it can be shown that he is pursuing contact with the child mostly as a way of punishing you for going to the CSA.

emsywoo123

DUTR wrote: »

Darling as the previous poster says , it is about the child's rights not the parents, how come the fact that he is an alcoholic makes him not good enough to have his time with the child, yet it did not matter that he was an alcoholic when you made the baby or want CS contributions.

Anyways access and CS are not linked, however the courts are leaning favourably on access to the child, they can often see through vexatious slander from the PWC.
I thought nowadays the father has to be named on the BC, certainly father have parental rights automatically since 2003 I understand.

The part in bold is not correct.

shelley_crow

DUTR wrote: »

Darling as the previous poster says , it is about the child's rights not the parents, how come the fact that he is an alcoholic makes him not good enough to have his time with the child, yet it did not matter that he was an alcoholic when you made the baby or want CS contributions.

Anyways access and CS are not linked, however the courts are leaning favourably on access to the child, they can often see through vexatious slander from the PWC.
I thought nowadays the father has to be named on the BC, certainly father have parental rights automatically since 2003 I understand.

Hmm, one of the most patronising posts i have ever read on here, that takes some doing.

I remember the OP's other threads she made while pregnant, IIRC the baby's father was not an alcoholic when the met/moved in together and hid it for a long time, culminating in op finding out while pregnant.

The child DOES have a right to be safe, which will be paramount in the court's eyes. So OP lets the father have their son unsupervised and he drink drives for example (which i hope OP will correct me but i think he already has done this). I'd no sooner let my 9 week old child be looked after by an alcoholic than if he was shooting up heroin, both would render him incapable. The court will not let contact comprimise safety.

It's not a legal requirement for father to be named on bc, op and ex were not married.

Contact would be beneficial to the child but if you are worried about him being legless, you can push for contact to be supervised in a contact centre (by a responsible adult). If he rolls up pickled then they won't let contact happen and each instance will be recorded.

Is he getting any help for his problem OP?

DUTR

emsywoo123 wrote: »

The part in bold is not correct.

"
A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child, as does a married father irrespective of whether the marriage to the mother occurred before or after the birth of the child.
As from the 1 December 2003, unmarried fathers of children born after this date, provided they are named on the birth certificate of the child, also have parental responsibility.
Fathers of children born before 1 December 2003 who haven’t acquired parental responsibility by virtue of marriage, or unmarried fathers of children who were born after 1 December 2003 and are not named as father on the child’s birth certificate, do not automatically have parental responsibility. They must apply for it, in the same way as step-parents must."


Which means if he is not on the BC then the CSA cannot assume he is the father and a DNA test may have to be had.

nellienoo

Really sorry that you are in this situation-hang on in there....A previous poster mentioned automatic parental rights even if the father's name is NOT on the birth certificate. I think you should check this out. It used to be that if the father's name was Not on the birth certificate & you were not married, then he does not have joint parental responsibility. He would have to get your permission and then apply to the court to legally have parental responsibility.(Happened to brother in law a few years ago...).Not sure if this still stands-so do check it out.
Try to ring Citizen's Advice for help on organisations that will give you information. Also you could go to a Solicitor that deals with family law (just ask when you ring), and see if they do those appointments where they will give you 1/2 hour for free/£5 for advice.
Arm yourself with as much information as you can so you can make informed decisions and not be blackmailed by your ex partner.
Good luck and take care.xxx

DUTR

shelley_crow wrote: »

Hmm, one of the most patronising posts i have ever read on here, that takes some doing.

I remember the OP's other threads she made while pregnant, IIRC the baby's father was not an alcoholic when the met/moved in together and hid it for a long time, culminating in op finding out while pregnant.

The child DOES have a right to be safe, which will be paramount in the court's eyes. So OP lets the father have their son unsupervised and he drink drives for example (which i hope OP will correct me but i think he already has done this). I'd no sooner let my 9 week old child be looked after by an alcoholic than if he was shooting up heroin, both would render him incapable. The court will not let contact comprimise safety.

It's not a legal requirement for father to be named on bc, op and ex were not married.

Contact would be beneficial to the child but if you are worried about him being legless, you can push for contact to be supervised in a contact centre (by a responsible adult). If he rolls up pickled then they won't let contact happen and each instance will be recorded.

Is he getting any help for his problem OP?

I'm not patronising the OP, just stating some of the obvious without siding or getting emotionally wrapped up in the tale, after all it does not affect you or I whichever way the outcome goes.
It's no point painting a totally rosy picture for the OP, life is not always rosy, after all the father could later just pay the csa and choose not to have any contact with the child, and Mums and children have posted about "how can I get him to see /visit me?"