CSA Help

LouLee2008

Hey , i was just after some advice really..

Long story short, my partner found out he is not the father of his ex child that he has raised for 2 years , found this out by doing pirvate dna test,

Csa have been hassiling him to pay, obvisouly he wasnt going to as hes not the father, now his ex has got his empolyer involved and they have taken the money out his wages each week.
We are waiting for csa to go ahead with there dna test as they dont recognise the one we used.

My questions are:

When it comes back that he isnt the father, he will get all the money back that he has paid wont he?

also where will this come from? will CSA pay it or will we have to wait for his ex to pay it?

Does she get her benefits stopped if she cant say who the father is?

Many thanks for all your help/

susan070571

My experience of the CSA say tells me that you will have to claim the money back from the ex. The CSA will not give you the money. They will only stop benefit payments to the mother if she refuses to give the name of the father as opposed to not having a clue who it is.
Might be worth seeking legal advice to see if they can put a stay on the payments otherwise I doubt you will see the money back if the ex is on benefits.

Susan

LouLee2008

Sadly there is nothing he can do.. has to keep paying untill the dna says otherwise

thats soo wrong.. just coz shes a idiot! grrr!

Thanks for your help

N71

Did he use a CSA approved testing agency? Ring the csa and ask for a list of their approved testing agencies, if he's not used a recognised one, he'll have to test again.

He can get a refund from the CSA, and they'll ask the PWC to pay it back, but as she's on benefits, she probably won't!

PWC will have to claim again, naming who the father may be (if she knows) or she could have her benefits cut.

Good luck.

LouLee2008

he is going through the csa for a dna test now, wiaiting for them to contact him, so will probabaly take few months lol

thats good at least he will get some money back

Oldernotwiser

Do you mean that he's just turned his back on a child he raised for 2 years? What a terrible thing to do!

mute_posting

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you mean that he's just turned his back on a child he raised for 2 years? What a terrible thing to do!

Pardon?

Why should OP's OH have a DEO for a child that isn't his? If they want to continue being in the childs life, that is upto them and can achieve the same financial effect by paying £10 per week direct (but that is a seperate issue).

OP if the PWC is on benefits (i.e isn't seeing the money apart from £10 per week) the majority will be due back from the CSA - although your OH may have another fight on his hands actually getting it back!

MP

LouLee2008

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you mean that he's just turned his back on a child he raised for 2 years? What a terrible thing to do!

NOt once did i say that.. he is still seeing the child.. even tho the parent is making it difficult for them/

So get your facts right before you make a comment please

LouLee2008

mute_posting wrote: »

Pardon?

Why should OP's OH have a DEO for a child that isn't his? If they want to continue being in the childs life, that is upto them and can achieve the same financial effect by paying £10 per week direct (but that is a seperate issue).

OP if the PWC is on benefits (i.e isn't seeing the money apart from £10 per week) the majority will be due back from the CSA - although your OH may have another fight on his hands actually getting it back!

MP

Thank you thats very helpful, he pays into a childrens mutual savings account, so i think he will continue to do that

Oldernotwiser

LouLee2008 wrote: »

NOt once did i say that.. he is still seeing the child.. even tho the parent is making it difficult for them/

So get your facts right before you make a comment please

Fair enough, but taking large sums of money back from his ex isn't really going to help the child's quality of life, is it.

Paul_Herring

Oldernotwiser wrote:

Fair enough, but taking large sums of money back from his ex isn't really going to help the child's quality of life, is it.

You appear to be reading a great deal into the limited amount of information presented thus far.

Particularly since you appear to have not bothered reading the post directly before yours, posted 80 minutes before your reply which appears to directly contradict your opinion.