Not the father

ceridwen

Thats expensive - though obviously cheap at the price compared to paying maintenance for years.

The guy would have the problem of losing the £500 if the test came up "positive" though - though, of course, theres always the possibility I suppose that the woman would decide "Not worth pursuing the poor mug I caught like this if he is going to start fighting me about it at the outset" and might give up trying to make him pay for her solo decision. Or would the CSA pursue the man anyway if the test was "positive" - even if she told them not to?

Marisco

I can see what you're saying ceridwen, but if a man is that adamant he doesn't want kids, surely it's up to him to take precautions as well, and not rely on what the woman says? But I do agree with Prelude, it's not the CSA's fault if the mother has told them the father is Joe Bloggs and he has no reason to think otherwise!! If it comes "out" years down the line, then the mother should be persued with the same vigour that NRP's are! The only other alternative to make sure no "mistakes" happen, is to DNA test everyone who opens a case with the CSA!

kevin137

But I do agree with Prelude, it's not the CSA's fault if the mother has told them the father is Joe Bloggs and he has no reason to think otherwise!!

But it IS there fault how they deal with there own actions, and the way they treat NRP's is absolutely disgraceful on many occasions...! And the lies they come out with in court and the devious underhand tactics they use, well i'm sure they would not get away with it if they didn't hide behind the pretence they are a Government Agency....!!!

If it comes "out" years down the line, then the mother should be persued with the same vigour that NRP's are!

If it's good for the goose and all that, but we all know that will never happen now don't we...

The only other alternative to make sure no "mistakes" happen, is to DNA test everyone who opens a case with the CSA!

That has been suggested in previous Government, but it would never be allowed through because of the to many do-gooders preaching about how it will breach there human rights...!!!

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

But it IS there fault how they deal with there own actions, and the way they treat NRP's is absolutely disgraceful on many occasions...! And the lies they come out with in court and the devious underhand tactics they use, well i'm sure they would not get away with it if they didn't hide behind the pretence they are a Government Agency....!!!

But it's not the CSA's fault if PWC says Joe Bloggs is the father, and he thinks he is, so doesn't deny it!!! Say for arguments sake Joe and Jane Bloggs have a kid, Jane has a "bit on the side" says nowt to Joe, baby arrives, Joe is ecstatic etc. Years go by, they split up, the kid is say, 7, so Joe pays his dues via CSA. Then when the kid is say 14/15, something happens, maybe medical or whatever, and it comes out that that child is not Joes', how is the CSA at fault?? The only one at fault is Jane, as she would know there is a possibility that the kid is not Joe's, so she should be the one to apologise and pay back all the money he's shelled out!

Much as I hate the CSA, and agree with you that their treatment of some NRP's is disgusting, I have to defend them in an instance like the above. The fault is solely with the PWC in a case like that. Otherwise they would either have to interrogate all PWC's or insist on DNA tests for everyone, which would be the only way they could guarantee that no "mistakes" ever occur!

kevin137

So if they hound the NRP for the money throughout his life, and then it turns out that they shouldn't of been hounding him, then they don't have to answer for their actions...?

I don't agree, and to be fair, most NRP's pay with no argument, but the CSA are a law unto themselves, and you get behind for whatever reason, and they then hound you and are complicit in there actions by acting on the behalf of the PWC.

Don't get me wrong, i think the system sucks, and i also agree that anyone choosing to use the CSA should have to undergo mandatory DNA testing, but ignorance is NO defence in British Law...!!!

And so we get this right, the CSA do not use the law, as they have told me many many times, they use legislation, which from my understanding, must have parties agree to make anything legally binding, and that being the case, if i don't agree, then i don't have to pay...? You can argue till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, they are involved in any wrong doing by the PWC and as so are responsible jointly...! If they choose to go after (or not) the PWC after the fact, that is there choice... BUT lets be honest, if i pay £5000 a year for say 8 years, and then find out the "truth" that would leave a debt of £40,000 compounded with interest at 3% above base rate of inflation, and the chances of ever getting that back from the PWC is more than likely ZERO...!!! So i would have to suffer again...? WRONG WRONG WRONG...!!!

cosmic-dust

Morlock wrote: »

Whomever the mother decides to name as the father is pursued by the CSA. The man needs to prove that he is not the father by paying nearly £500 for a court-approved DNA test (which is refunded if the test is negative). However, I am sure a lot of 'fathers' would struggle to raise that amount of cash, which they may not get back.

£500 :eek: Try £252.00.

Paying for a DNA test

The fee for testing three people (two adults and one child) is £252.00. If the person named as the parent pays when they return their appointment form, they can pay a discounted rate of £187.20.
These costs may change, so call the CSA to check. None of the money for DNA testing goes to the CSA.
The CSA expects the person named as the parent to pay for the test.
In special circumstances, the CSA will accept that the person named as the parent can’t pay for the test. If this happens the CSA will pay the fee. But, if the test shows that they are the parent of the child, they will have to repay this money to the CSA.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ChildMaintenance/IfyourealreadyusingtheChildSupportAgency/DG_199098

buttercup73

kevin137 wrote: »

So if they hound the NRP for the money throughout his life, and then it turns out that they shouldn't of been hounding him, then they don't have to answer for their actions...?

Nope, it's the PWC that sent the dogs by opening the case with CSA in the first place with the possibility this NRP isn't the father.

So if she should be sued or not; reckon it depends too much on the situation, full details are only known to the people in question. Things to consider would probably be PWC character and attitude after the divorce and how much it would hurt the child when landing her in debt if a court case is won, etc.

Though being a father is more than a biological connection so dropping a bomb like that when you find out you're not genetically connected seems quite harsh - yes, having had the CSA hound you for 15 years is harsh as well, but certainly not the child's fault.

cosmic-dust

halibut2209 wrote: »

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?

If the named person proves they are not the parent

If the person named as the parent of a child proves that they are not the parent, the CSA may:

• refund any child maintenance payments made after the date that the person first denied they are the parent
• refund the cost of the DNA test if one was arranged through the CSA

The CSA may also ask the parent with care to pay back any child maintenance, if that money:

• was received after the date that parentage was denied
• has been refunded to the person named as the parent

Refunds are made at the discretion of the CSA and depend on the circumstances of each case.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ChildMaintenance/IfyourealreadyusingtheChildSupportAgency/DG_199163

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

So if they hound the NRP for the money throughout his life, and then it turns out that they shouldn't of been hounding him, then they don't have to answer for their actions...?

I don't agree, and to be fair, most NRP's pay with no argument, but the CSA are a law unto themselves, and you get behind for whatever reason, and they then hound you and are complicit in there actions by acting on the behalf of the PWC.

Don't get me wrong, i think the system sucks, and i also agree that anyone choosing to use the CSA should have to undergo mandatory DNA testing, but ignorance is NO defence in British Law...!!!

And so we get this right, the CSA do not use the law, as they have told me many many times, they use legislation, which from my understanding, must have parties agree to make anything legally binding, and that being the case, if i don't agree, then i don't have to pay...? You can argue till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, they are involved in any wrong doing by the PWC and as so are responsible jointly...! If they choose to go after (or not) the PWC after the fact, that is there choice... BUT lets be honest, if i pay £5000 a year for say 8 years, and then find out the "truth" that would leave a debt of £40,000 compounded with interest at 3% above base rate of inflation, and the chances of ever getting that back from the PWC is more than likely ZERO...!!! So i would have to suffer again...? WRONG WRONG WRONG...!!!

In the case I highlighted, no. How the hell are they supposed to know the PWC lied about the child not being Joe Bloggs'??? They might be accountable for many other things, but not if they persued Joe in good faith, they can only go on what the PWC tells them, and if the NRP agrees or rather doesn't disagree the child is his, there is not a lot the CSA can do. Unless you want them to call all PWC's liars, and insist on DNA tests for all?

As I said I hate the CSA with a passion, but you have to be sensible about things. The CSA can only go on what the PWC tells them, if the NRP disagrees that the child is his, then yes they should insist on a DNA, and if the PWC doesn't agree to a DNA, then the case should be dropped and no more said about it. But to blame the CSA for a case where everyone (but the PWC, and she is saying nowt!!!)thinks the child is the NRP's is ridiculous!!

kevin137

But to blame the CSA for a case where everyone (but the PWC, and she is saying nowt!!!)thinks the child is the NRP's is ridiculous!!

Ok, so i pay at the rates mentioned, and the PWC claims benefit, and it is proved i am not the father, how much does she repay, and does the CSA chase this for me...? I am guessing it would be a £5 a week...!!! Is this right..?

You cannot have it both ways, if the CSA is going to involve itself in the financial implications of bringing up a child, and chase the NRP for the said money, when it goes wrong they cannot pass the buck back to the PWC, they need to MAN UP and face there responsibilities...! The same as when they f**k over the NRP and insist he HAS to pay...!

They are NOT above the law, in fact they don't even use law to make collections, and this argument has and will be realised many many times, they use legislation, which to be a part of, you must agree to, in effect creating a contract...!

If you ever go to court against the CSA you will understand, they always insist you use legal representation, and the court will try and persuade you also, but when you suggest to the judge that by doing so, you hand over your rights to the solicitor, you are indeed agreeing to any contract they decide between them, which brings me to the next point, if the CSA is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, which they are, and any action goes to Court, who do you sit in front of...? A Magistrate, or Judge, who is acting on behalf of, yes you got it, the Secretary of State...! Stink of corruption it seems...!

And i have in fact sat in front of of court and asked the so called judge for a copy of there commission of oath, and was told by doing so i could be held in contempt of court...! Really...? Is that so...? And you can be arrested for impersonating a judge...! And how many times have we heard that the CSA go to court for liability orders, and you do not get a chance to speak, as they instruct the judge of there roll in the matters, and then my case where they lied to the judge about my home address so they could get the LO applied knowing full well that they had the correct address and had written to me there in ANOTHER country...!

And you still think they are not responsible...?

There are many on here that would disagree....!!!