CSA presume parentage when DNA is in question

mummyjonno

I was wondering if someone could help me advise one of my guy friends.

Basically he was married a 6 years old and his wife was pregnant (turns out she was cheating on him he found out after the baby was born) So his name was on the childs birth certificate.

CSA are involved and have informed him that because they were married and he signed the birth certificate they have presumed he is the childs father even though he disputes it after finding out she was cheating with numerous other men.

He is in the RAF and they have an attachment of earnings on him. CSA asked her for a DNA test and she said no. I thought when this was the case they presumed they weren't the childs father.

He really needs some advice if at all possible. I asked him to sign up to the forum but it seams he's lost all his fight now and I'm trying to help a little.

Thanks in advance

Fission

mummyjonno wrote: »

...one of my ... friends ... he was married ... and his wife was pregnant (turns out she was cheating on him he found out after the baby was born) So his name was on the childs birth certificate. CSA are involved and have informed him that because they were married and he signed the birth certificate they have presumed he is the childs father even though he disputes it after finding out she was cheating with numerous other me ... CSA asked her for a DNA test and she said no. I thought when this was the case they presumed they weren't the childs father.

IF his name is on the birth certificate and/or if the child was born whilst he was married to the mother, he is the father as far as the Child Support Act is concerned.

He can go to court - but there is no compulsion on the Child Support Agency to assist him with a DNA test - the matter is already legally resolved.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

The tricky thing is that it's already passed the assessment stage. Did he deny paternity when they first phoned him/or when they sent the paperwork to him?

mummyjonno

He has informed them all along that he did not think the child was his (it's possible he was out of the country when they child was conceived) He informed them he would happily pay for the child if DNA tests were done and he was proven the father.

She refused point blank to do the DNA test's at which you'd assume they'd presume he wasn't the parent however they instead set up an attachment of earnings on him.

kevin137

How long ago did they split and the CSA become involved...?

It could be interesting to see the outcome with this, as you would have more reason for a DNA test to be done. I don't think the whole story has been told though, as if the ex refused a DNA test, the case would of been closed, that is what the legislation says, so the CSA could not take any money. I believe that any money paid to that date would also have to be refunded if the DNA test was asked for right at the start then there is no liability.

More info would certainly help...

mummyjonno

kevin137 wrote: »

How long ago did they split and the CSA become involved...?

It could be interesting to see the outcome with this, as you would have more reason for a DNA test to be done. I don't think the whole story has been told though, as if the ex refused a DNA test, the case would of been closed, that is what the legislation says, so the CSA could not take any money. I believe that any money paid to that date would also have to be refunded if the DNA test was asked for right at the start then there is no liability.

More info would certainly help...

This is exactly what I thought having dealt with CSA and my ex asking for a DNA test but not going through with it they presumed parentage, Although it seam's to be the opposite way round with my friend unfortunately.

They have informed him just because he is on the child's birth certificate that is enough proof that he is actually the childs biological father, At the time you wouldn't think "hold on I wasn't even in the country"

It seam's to CSA the clouds are made of candy floss, spouses don't cheat and women tell the gospel truth

Mojisola

mummyjonno wrote: »

This is exactly what I thought having dealt with CSA and my ex asking for a DNA test but not going through with it they presumed parentage, Although it seam's to be the opposite way round with my friend unfortunately.

They have informed him just because he is on the child's birth certificate that is enough proof that he is actually the childs biological father, At the time you wouldn't think "hold on I wasn't even in the country"

It seam's to CSA the clouds are made of candy floss, spouses don't cheat and women tell the gospel truth

If the parents aren't married, the purported father can say he isn't the father and, unless the mother allows a dna test, the CSA will not pursue him.

Legally, any child born within a marriage is a "child of the marriage" and the husband is legally accepted as the father. In this case the burden of proof is on the man to show that he is not the father.

He needs to take legal advice because I think he will have to go to court over this.

To settle his mind, if he has access to the child, he could get a paternity test done but this wouldn't be accepted by the CSA - you have to use particular firms.

mummyjonno

I would have said although not a very nice way of doing it if he had visitation just to do the test without her permission needs must sometime's however he's not seen this child since it was 2 weeks old and she ran off with someone else. He doesn't know where she is or how to contact her or the child for that matter of fact.

I was hoping for his sake that it wouldn't be court but I guess it's the most logical way of solving it.

CSA seam to do whatever they please and clearly don't use those guidelines for everyone. My husband is on my son's BC (we were married when he was born) but he is not my son's biological father. CSA are aware of this yet continue to take child support from his actual biological father.

It's a shame they can't have clear cut rules and can't be more open minded to reality really

kevin137

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/ChildMaintenance/IfyourealreadyusingtheChildSupportAgency/DG_199163

It makes no difference if you are married or not, was the question raised in writing or on the phone, if on the phone there will be a recorded conversation on the file which you can request by making a SAR's request, if it was done in writing, then there is an assumption that because you posted it, they received it, as is the assumption hen they post to you...

Personally, i would raise the issue with my local MP, but i would raise it as a formal complaint through the CSA's complaint procedure as well.

Any denial of DNA test by PWC shuts a case down, it makes no difference married or otherwise.

RedSky

If we have no reason to doubt that the person named as the parent of a child is the parent – for example if they are named on the child’s birth certificate – then by law we are entitled to presume they are the parent.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@benefits/documents/digitalasset/dg_198851.pdf

kevin137

But if it is disputed then they have a legal obligation to follow the legislation that gives a chance to prove paternity, not to say you are on the birth certificate and that is the end of it.

Also, if the PWC did in fact deny the DNA test, the legislation clearly states that the case must be closed. Meaning nothing to answer.

It couldn't be any clearer.

Is is all well and good after the fact saying the child isn't mine and all this happened, you need to argue that you said this to get it brought back into play though, which will be recorded call or mail. Either way, if they had offered the wrong advice, or offered illegal advice, you have a claim for compensation against them to start with.

If you can prove you asked for this at the start, and it was denied or she refused and you had to continue paying, then you could in fact get a refund of ALL payments made. If it was proved you where the father, then she would need to open a new case as the CSA would then have a duty. The problem lies with who did what and what is provable.

I would say that it is all relative, and if you have other children from the same relationship the money is only a percentage of the claim, and not the whole claim.