Long post Sorry

incorrect_2

My son had a brief relationship with a girl years ago and then they parted, they both went on to be with new partners. She was 17 and he was 21 at the time. Not long after she found out she was pregnant and said the baby was my sons and even though they were no longer together he added his name to the birth certificate. All this was 15 years ago. Now he has had no further contact with the girl or the child and he has a partner of 14 years and they have 2 children together. They have bought their house she works he doesn't due to ill health. Out of the blue he has been contacted by the csa regarding the child from the previous partner. As so many years have passed and things have over time moved on the mother had revealed to numerous people over the years that my son is indeed not the father. He is willing to do tests to prove one way or the other but, if he is will they be looking at 15 yrs back money? He has mental Heath issues and has not worked for 4 years prior to this he worked full time. His partner works part time and is at uni so they don't have a good income plus they get tax credits. They are worried so any help would be appreciated. Thanks

montyrebel

I think I have read on here before that they can try and get money back off your son but only back as far as when she 1st made contact with the CSA and I doubt that was 15 years ago.

I could be wrong but get the tests done and then take it from there is my advice

whitewing

Definitely insist on tests.

I understand it similarly to the above poster, so no - not 15 years. Don't forget, whatever happens, there will be advice and support available to them on here so it isn't worth him getting stressed and making his mental health worse. No worrying until the test outcome is revealed!

incorrect_2

Thank you, he was contacted by the csa last week but, I don't know when she contacted them. I do know she has never worked so I would have thought that this would have reared its head before now.

clearingout

The fact she has never worked is worrying as there was a time (prior to 2010) when it was mandatory to hand over the father's details when opening a benefit claim. More recently, this practise has been stopped.

Has he moved around a lot? Is there any chance he has had his head in the sand? Unfortunately, a lot of guys struggle to pay and rather than deal with the issue, bury it as deep as they can but inevitably, it comes back to haunt them. The CSA are very slow but they do seem to get there in the end.

I would advise him to deny he is the father (this is essential) and get the DNA test done and out of the way. You will then have a better idea of what you may (or may not) be looking at. If a case has been previously opened, he may well be looking at arrears if the child turns out to be his - however, as he is now working, he will only pay a minimum amount from his benefits and his wife/partner will not have to pay it for him.

DUTR

incorrect wrote: »

My son had a brief relationship with a girl years ago and then they parted, they both went on to be with new partners. She was 17 and he was 21 at the time. Not long after she found out she was pregnant and said the baby was my sons and even though they were no longer together he added his name to the birth certificate. All this was 15 years ago. Now he has had no further contact with the girl or the child and he has a partner of 14 years and they have 2 children together. They have bought their house she works he doesn't due to ill health. Out of the blue he has been contacted by the csa regarding the child from the previous partner. As so many years have passed and things have over time moved on the mother had revealed to numerous people over the years that my son is indeed not the father. He is willing to do tests to prove one way or the other but, if he is will they be looking at 15 yrs back money? He has mental Heath issues and has not worked for 4 years prior to this he worked full time. His partner works part time and is at uni so they don't have a good income plus they get tax credits. They are worried so any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Liability starts from when the CSA made contact, what is not clear is if they had made contact prior to your posting , eg many years ago.
They can assume paternity if the NRP's name is on the birth certificate, however if this is indeed their 1st contact with him, then on the MEF form, he can tick the box for a DNA test (this is chargeable).

HoneyNutLoop

To follow on from the points made about requiring a DNA test; because he's on the birth certificate, even if this is the very first contact by CMS, they are under no legal obligation to offer DNA testing arranged by them before proceeding. He has already legally accepted he is the child's father by placing his name on the birth certificate, and they can proceed with the application on the basis that he is the father, because of this.

There is a real possibility that if he wants a DNA test, he will have to arrange it privately with the mother or through the courts if the former is not possible. Maintenance would continue to be payable until he could provide CMS with a negative DNA test result, which complies with the MOJ's testing standards.

incorrect_2

First thank you for the help guys. this is the first contact he has had from csa and as the child is now 15 it has come as a bit of a shock really. He has lived at the same address for 12yrs so not like they have had to try and find him. His mental illness is so bad he can't deal with this himself, he will never be able to work again. He does have long spells in hospital so, as you will imagine we don't want him getting too stressed about money.
The mother of the child is not willing to discuss the matter so that's not helpful.
Paying for the Dna test is not really a problem if it solves the issue once and for all.
I do feel for the child though, she is a 15yr old girl and she will no doubt be upset by this when she realises what is going on.
The mother has 3 other children and has always been on benefits, she has not worked since leaving school.
This is why I would have thought this would have come up before now.