Not the father

halibut2209

Just wondering.

Suppose there was a situation where a man had been paying Child Support for 2 children for 15 or so years, and then found out that one of the children wasn't his.

Would he be entitled to be repaid the money he had given?

buttercup73

Don't think CSA are going to pay that up. 15 years means it's an old rules case; the Maintenance Enquiry Form will have been sent out, signed and returned after which payments started. So as far as CSA would be concerned they didn't make any mistakes.

kevin137

I would personally go after them for the FULL amount in the small claims court, as there is in effect a contract for payment "maintenance" for a child they have deemed to be yours, if they did not offer, or refused you a DNA test, then that contract would indeed of been biased towards the CSA, and as such the DWP who would of benefitted financially in the mother was on benefit...

clearingout

I think you need to be careful with that advice, Kevin. If paternity has not been disputed and the 'father' has paid willingly for all these years, the CSA have done nothing wrong. The onus is on the 'father' to dispute paternity when he is contacted for maintenance payments. If no dispute, maintenance is collected. The CSA can assume paternity but I can assure you that in my case, where they had 'good reason' to assume, they didn't when my ex denied paternity.

Of course, the 'father' needs to know the rules and I guess that's the sticking point. Who's responsibility is it - the CSA's to tell you that you can indeed dispute paternity or the 'father' who needs to read up on his 'rights' if he has doubts?

Marisco

I think what the op meant though, was not that there was doubt at first, but if he if he found out 15 years later, maybe through some medical procedure or blood transfusions etc, could he claim for the 15 years he paid in good faith? Interesting question:) I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on, 'cos what would have happened if he found out when the child was 20, there'd be no end to it!!! :eek:

kevin137

Marisco wrote: »

I think what the op meant though, was not that there was doubt at first, but if he if he found out 15 years later, maybe through some medical procedure or blood transfusions etc, could he claim for the 15 years he paid in good faith? Interesting question:) I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on, 'cos what would have happened if he found out when the child was 20, there'd be no end to it!!! :eek:

And that is my point, it is a contract to supply funds for maintenance for YOUR child, not someone else's...!!! And even with the correct advice from the CSA, if it turns out that you are not the father, then they have been in breach by collecting those payments as it in effect makes the contract nul and void...!

So that being the case... How is it that bank charges where reclaimed, albeit there are still some disputes about them, or payment protection.. Are they not the same? you where pushed into it, mis-sold etc...

Just because they are "The Government" people are afraid of them...! Not how it should be, you should not be frightened of a public body that have to answer to YOU...!

And just to back up my point, in the last government... A certain John Hutton was quoted as saying “…parents who are not living with their children…should pay for their kids. In an age where scientific technology is as accessible as it is, DNA paternity testing must become mandatory. Well-publicised cases of men discovering they have needlessly been paying child support are not only displays of injustice, they also undermine the credibility of the entire enforcement process."

Like most things in life, if there is a breach of trust, or a fraudulent act, then you can claim, if a mother went to the CSA and told them that YOU are the father, knowing full well that she had been sleeping with 1 or more others, then there would be a breach of trust and the money should be repaid, now it is between the CSA who enforce the claim, and the mother as to who is responsible for paying out, but the claim would be against the CSA as it is them that enforces it. Either way, i doubt very much that a court would say it is OK for you to of paid and that the CSA have no recourse or they are above the law. Whatever the legislation says, it is morally wrong, and will indeed make many many others start questioning the CSA and probably force many more to insist on DNA tests, which adds to the next moral dilemma, what it does to the family unit, regardless of the fact that you would not be together, it breeds distrust and causes more problems within the family, making for a worse upbringing for the children... Can the government really stand for that...??? I think they would find it very hard to fight a properly worded argument in court if you where in fact in that situation...!

Marisco

I would have thought that the mother should pay it back, she was the one that fraudulently obtained it! She might not have known who the father was, but as she was sleeping with 2 or more at the time, then the onus is on her to get a DNA test done! As it would obviously be one or the other! Why should the CSA doubt what a mother tells them?

If she said Joe Bloggs was the father, and Joe Bloggs didn't know she was catting around, then why should Joe Bloggs or the CSA not believe her? It opens a whole can of worms if the CSA are going to insist on a DNA test before it opens a case, just because a very few women lie!!!

If it's found at a later date that he is not the father, especially if he had no reason to doubt it, then the woman should be made to pay back every penny she got off him, that might make some devious women think twice about ripping someone off! But much as I hate the CSA, I cannot see that in this sort of case it would be their fault. In the absence of compulsory DNA tests for everyone, I cannot see what else the CSA can do, but take the mothers word for it.

halibut2209

Marisco wrote: »

I would have thought that the mother should pay it back,

That was something else I wondered about. Could the non-father take civil action against the mother? Would the statute of limitations be in effect?

DUTR

halibut2209 wrote: »

That was something else I wondered about. Could the non-father take civil action against the mother? Would the statute of limitations be in effect?

If you search the forum, such cases have existed

clearingout

if you put the moral aside, the legal side of this is very complex. Mum can swear blind she thought he was the father - she can argue till the cows come home about knowing her cycle and knowing who she slept with and when and therefore as far as she was concerned, there could only be one possible father. How do you know if she's telling the truth? How do you measure someone's capacity to both understand and their actual understanding of exactly when in a cycle you get pregnant and how there is possibly more than one father on that basis? I know university graduates who have sworn blind they couldn't be pregnant after 3 or 4 missed periods...is that denial or lack of understanding of how their bodies work? could it be possible that someone who has managed to get to university doesn't understand how their body works? It's certainly possible, depending on how they were brought up and their own level of interest in how things work.

Are we therefore to demonise all women on the basis that some will lie and cheat? It is humilliating and distressing to be asked to undergo a DNA test when all that you have done 'wrong' is experience a relationship breakdown. I don't like the idea that we need to bring in a system of automatic testing but I am also in agreement, it's wrong for a father to pay a small fortune in maintenance when there is even an outside chance the child isn't his.

C_Mababejive

I dont think you will get refunded. I seem to recall some case law on this but cant point you to it. Maybe someone knows better?

I know its unfair but thats what men are here for...to be trampled by everyone else.