Not the father

Marisco

DUTR wrote: »

More BS and rumour spreading on the forum?
You have enough posts to know that a poster on here in the past after a long time found out that the child that she thought was her partner's , was not and he got a full refund, they had 'adopted' the child .

Apart from the fact that that thread was before I joined, I don't tend to remember past threads and posters! I just go on what is posted at the time. It never ceases to amaze me when people can quote posts from posters that are on other threads, that contradict what they say on another thread!!!:eek: TBH I'm not that interested to go trawling threads looking for contradictions, so I stick to current threads!

cosmic-dust

Marisco wrote: »

Apart from the fact that that thread was before I joined, I don't tend to remember past threads and posters! I just go on what is posted at the time. It never ceases to amaze me when people can quote posts from posters that are on other threads, that contradict what they say on another thread!!!:eek: TBH I'm not that interested to go trawling threads looking for contradictions, so I stick to current threads!

I don't think DUTR was looking for any contradictions...more of look it can and does happen, here's an example.

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

Apart from the fact that that thread was before I joined, I don't tend to remember past threads and posters! I just go on what is posted at the time. It never ceases to amaze me when people can quote posts from posters that are on other threads, that contradict what they say on another thread!!!:eek: TBH I'm not that interested to go trawling threads looking for contradictions, so I stick to current threads!

Post #11 summarises it well,
what caused me concern in the post I responded to was the wording of, he is unlikely to get a refund, which indeed is not fact.
I know plenty of NRPs that have had refunds from the CSA for a variety of reasons.
And in the majority of cases a refund will swiftly follow.
It is when posts are made and it is nearly always to the detriment of the NRP that it is backed up and spouted as truth.

You are right though the thread was before you joined, I wanted to sieze the opportunity to put the record straight on the matter.
CS contributions are only available from the biological or NRP to an adopted child (not step children), if monies were taken in error then it is to be refunded, the children are not the concern of who the PWC 'thinks' is the daddy, and it is not for an innocent (often male) to just roll over and take the wrath.

Marisco

DUTR wrote: »

Post #11 summarises it well,
what caused me concern in the post I responded to was the wording of, he is unlikely to get a refund, which indeed is not fact.
I know plenty of NRPs that have had refunds from the CSA for a variety of reasons.
And in the majority of cases a refund will swiftly follow.
It is when posts are made and it is nearly always to the detriment of the NRP that it is backed up and spouted as truth.

You are right though the thread was before you joined, I wanted to sieze the opportunity to put the record straight on the matter.
CS contributions are only available from the biological or NRP to an adopted child (not step children), if monies were taken in error then it is to be refunded, the children are not the concern of who the PWC 'thinks' is the daddy, and it is not for an innocent (often male) to just roll over and take the wrath.

I quite agree with you, and all money should be refunded, and I think the PWC should be the one to pay it!!! I'm just surprised that they can go back so far!!! It could be thousands, and would they only have 2 years to pay like most poor NRP's do? Would they take 40% of the PWC's income to pay it? Goose and gander come to mind!!

pd001

Marisco wrote: »

I don't know if this is a hypothetical case or not, but if it isn't I hope that it was handled sensitively for the sake of the child. Fifteen is an awkward age at the best of times, but finding out something like that would be devastating. Given that he is unlikely to get money back, and I can well understand he'd be as mad as hell, but it might be better all round to just let it drop, rather than cause even more upset.

So the child might not be his?
He may have paid the csa in full?

In my eyes if the child is definitely not his, then he should get every single penny back together with a full apology from the csa and indeed the mother concerned!

pd001

DUTR wrote: »

CS contributions are only available from the biological or NRP to an adopted child (not step children),
Agreed

if monies were taken in error then it is to be refunded,
Totally agree

the children are not the concern of who the PWC 'thinks' is the daddy, and it is not for an innocent (often male) to just roll over and take the wrath.
Wholeheartedly agree

PreludeForTimeFeelers

pd001 wrote: »

So the child might not be his?
He may have paid the csa in full?

In my eyes if the child is definitely not his, then he should get every single penny back together with a full apology from the csa and indeed the mother concerned!

Why should he get a refund and an apology from the CSA though?

ceridwen

Errrrmm....being a bit "devils advocate" here......but, if I were a CSA official I would be wanting an explanation as to why any man who had been requested/ordered/etc to pay maintenance for a child in circumstances where he hadnt been jointly responsible for actively deciding it would be concieved in the first place hadnt AT THE TIME demanded a DNA test to check that the child was biologically his.

Not quite sure how long these DNA tests have been around???? - but I know my first reaction if I had been a man and a woman told me "You are going to be a father" (without having first got my consent to this) would be "If you are going to try and get money out of me for a child I didnt have a part in deciding to conceive - then I want a DNA test done to see whether I'm even the biological father or no in the first place".

I rather suspect a CSA official would tend to take the view that "What on earth was he doing believing a woman that had got pregnant without his consent (ie when she told him that he was the father)?". The first logical thing to do if a woman has gotten pregnant without the mans consent and then gone on to have the child is to regard her as a fundamentally untrustworthy person and to doubt her word that he is the biological father isnt it??"

So - that being the case - I think any man in that position needs to have thought through just why he didnt tell said (untrustworthy) woman to have a DNA test in the first place back when the child was first born, rather than compounding the believing she was "dealing with" the contraception issue by believing that she wouldnt tell him a lie as to which man she "stole the sperm" from. The fact that he didnt do so would weigh against him later I would think...

pd001

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Why should he get a refund and an apology from the CSA though?

If the CSA were involved in the collection of that money then they should refund and apologise for getting it wrong.
Then they should prosecute the mother of said child and recover the money from her.

If the mother of the child has been paid directly, with no csa involvement then perhaps a fraud has taken place?
Maybe she has obtained monies by deception?
Prosecution should follow

PreludeForTimeFeelers

pd001 wrote: »

If the CSA were involved in the collection of that money then they should refund and apologise for getting it wrong.
Then they should prosecute the mother of said child and recover the money from her.

If the mother of the child has been paid directly, with no csa involvement then perhaps a fraud has taken place?
Maybe she has obtained monies by deception?
Prosecution should follow

Any refund should be directly from the PWC, the NRP is given a chance to deny paternity at the outset of a case - as a taxpayer, why should I have to pay for the refund?