I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine
April 5, 2013
I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-partner as I have doubts that this child is mine.Reapeatly asked CSA for advice(no replies)Have reapeatly asked ex-partner to contact me (No response).She has registered the child with my name without my consent. I need proof. You say each time we call the calls are re-corderded, this is not the case when I call back no-one has a record of my previous calls. I am know going to a lawyer,CAB have provided me with written transcript how to deal with this and if it is proven this child is not mine, I will take court action to retrieve my £10k back with interest.
The Goverment need to look into men who are accused of the father before they arrest wages. I have not signed any paperwork to say I’am the father of this child.
Written by John Andrews · Filed Under CSA Advice
Related CSA Posts
Comments
Tell us your CSA story
Do you want to be heard?
Tell us your story of how the CSA has treated you. We might be able to help, and could publish your tale on the website to make sure everyone knows about the problems you've had.
Forum Login
Child Support Agency Poll
Loading ...CSAhell.com on Facebook
Search CSAhell.com
Child Support Agency (CSA) Advice
CSAhell.com has been set up to help you with your child support agency problems. If you're having difficulty getting the CSA to listen you can tell your story here. Get advice on dealing with the CSA at CSAhell.com.Subscribe
Enter your email address to receive child support agency advice and news direct to your inbox.
Recent Forum Replies
Recent Forum Topics
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
5 years, 10 months ago
-
csa arrears after case closed confused?
by jimgsd
6 years, 6 months ago
-
Pay Your Way – Avoid The CSA
by arealman
7 years ago
-
Can the CSA find me?
by amc123
7 years, 3 months ago
-
CSA to CMS
by markburtonmark
7 years, 7 months ago
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
-
Recent Posts
Categories
- Child Support Agency (112)
- CSA Advice (2,239)
- CSA Complaints (3,218)
- CSA Help (1,019)
- CSA Mistakes (392)
- CSA News (148)
- Events & Protests (8)
- General (1)
- Guest Posts (1)
- Website Updates (9)
CSA Comments
- Jayne on HMRC confirmed my ex’s lies to CSA
- Clair on CSA Self Employed
- Dontbeajudge on My ex won’t even give money for birthday presents
- kostakis Kleanthous on What is the maximum amount the CSA can take from me?
- Dave on My ex is lying to the CSA – what can I do?
- Ts on Will the CSA take my new partner’s earnings into account?
- Kate on How to beat the CSA
- unfair on How to beat the CSA
CSA Websites
-
Popular CSA posts today
- Can child maintenance dis... 10 views | 0 comments
- If the CSA closed a case... 9 views | 0 comments
- How do the CSA know if I&... 7 views | 0 comments
- Child maintenance: total... 7 views | 0 comments
- Just discovered my child... 6 views | 0 comments
- My ex is lying to the CSA... 6 views | 0 comments
- Fathers who killed themse... 6 views | 0 comments
- csa dismiss benefit fraud... 6 views | 0 comments
- Loophole in CSA protocol... 5 views | 0 comments
- What will the CSA do if y... 5 views | 0 comments
Archives
- February 2024 (1)
- January 2024 (4)
- December 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- July 2023 (1)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (1)
- December 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- May 2022 (1)
- April 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (1)
- January 2022 (4)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (4)
- October 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (5)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (7)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (2)
- June 2020 (2)
- March 2020 (3)
- February 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (6)
- August 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (7)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (8)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (7)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (5)
- May 2018 (9)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (6)
- February 2018 (32)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (20)
- October 2017 (15)
- September 2017 (14)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (10)
- June 2017 (19)
- May 2017 (20)
- April 2017 (16)
- March 2017 (19)
- February 2017 (14)
- January 2017 (15)
- December 2016 (15)
- November 2016 (35)
- October 2016 (26)
- September 2016 (13)
- August 2016 (23)
- July 2016 (22)
- June 2016 (16)
- May 2016 (21)
- April 2016 (20)
- March 2016 (27)
- February 2016 (29)
- January 2016 (23)
- December 2015 (25)
- November 2015 (30)
- October 2015 (31)
- September 2015 (29)
- August 2015 (30)
- July 2015 (70)
- June 2015 (91)
- May 2015 (93)
- April 2015 (90)
- March 2015 (93)
- February 2015 (84)
- January 2015 (83)
- December 2014 (77)
- November 2014 (86)
- October 2014 (94)
- September 2014 (89)
- August 2014 (94)
- July 2014 (93)
- June 2014 (91)
- May 2014 (93)
- April 2014 (82)
- March 2014 (83)
- February 2014 (83)
- January 2014 (97)
- December 2013 (100)
- November 2013 (122)
- October 2013 (124)
- September 2013 (120)
- August 2013 (126)
- July 2013 (124)
- June 2013 (122)
- May 2013 (124)
- April 2013 (120)
- March 2013 (117)
- February 2013 (63)
- January 2013 (96)
- December 2012 (93)
- November 2012 (92)
- October 2012 (95)
- September 2012 (91)
- August 2012 (93)
- July 2012 (93)
- June 2012 (103)
- May 2012 (93)
- April 2012 (66)
- March 2012 (65)
- February 2012 (64)
- January 2012 (73)
- December 2011 (75)
- November 2011 (75)
- October 2011 (99)
- September 2011 (60)
- August 2011 (62)
- July 2011 (68)
- June 2011 (61)
- May 2011 (75)
- April 2011 (66)
- March 2011 (68)
- February 2011 (62)
- January 2011 (68)
- December 2010 (64)
- November 2010 (60)
- October 2010 (62)
- September 2010 (61)
- August 2010 (66)
- July 2010 (65)
- June 2010 (61)
- May 2010 (65)
- April 2010 (60)
- March 2010 (64)
- February 2010 (46)
- January 2010 (23)
- December 2009 (26)
- November 2009 (44)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (8)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (30)
- May 2009 (14)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (5)
- January 2009 (5)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (8)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (20)
- April 2008 (28)
- March 2008 (11)
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
RT @CSAHell: I’m not convinced the child I pay for is mine: I have consistenly requested a test be done from my ex-pa… http://t.co/fZR …
Paternity – New Application PWC contacts agency asking to open case – details are taken accordingly NRP is contacted – initial attempts are by phone if number available, if no answer or no number available NRP will be send MEF (Maintenance Enquiry Form) along with covering letter stating name of PWC and name of QC(s). NRp will be asked if they accept paternity of QC(s) named in the PWC’s application 1. If NRP accepts of child(ren) case is opened. 2. If NRP denies paternity on initial MEF on MEF call or MEF form NRP will be offered DNA testing for QC(s) – this can be only, all or some (exceptions to this is where QC(s) are adopted. New App team will refer case to Complex Case Worker and DNA test(s) will be referred to Cellmark – Cellmark will contact NRP and PWC to make arrangements for tests to be carried out. NRP will be required to attend a specified medical facility (may be their own GP) and must present photographic ID. Tests are taken and sent to Cellmark lab. Results are supplied to CSA. If NRP is proven to be the biological parent the case will be opened and an assessment for CM will be progressed and the NRP will be held liable for regular maintenance back to the Initial Effective Date (the date the NRP was first contacted by the CSA). If the NRP is proven not to be the biological parent of the only QC named in the application the case will be closed, the PWC cannot re-apply for this child and this NRP at any point. If the NRP is proven not to be the biological parent of 1 or some of the QCs in the application the child(ren) who are proven not to be the biological children of the NRP will be removed the case will remain open to include QC(s) who have been proven to be the biological child(ren) of the NRP, NRP will be liable for RM of any QC proven to be the biological child(ren) of the NRP. The NPR will be held liable for the cost of DNA test(s) that prove the NRP to be the biological parent of child(ren), the CSA will pay the cost of the DNA test(s) that prove the NRP not to be the biological parent of child(ren). If PWC refuses to allow a DNA test the case will be closed (if there is only 1 QC named) or the appropriate child(ren) will be removed from the application if there are multiple children. The PWC can re-apply naming QC(s) at a later date and the NRP will be asked again if they accept paternity of QC(s), if paternity is accepted the case will be opened and assessed, if paternity is denied DNA testing will be re-offered. 3. If NRP accepts paternity on initial MEF call and later questions paternity NRP must advise CSA and will be advised that they are required to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage via the courts. The CSA will not pay the costs of obtaining a Declaration of Non-parentage. If a Declaration of Non-parentage is obtained the case will be closed – or the appropriate QC will be removed from the case. If a Declaration of Non-parentage is not supplied to the CSA the case will remain open. Liability for CM for a QC for whom NRP has obtained a Declaration of Non-parentage will cease from the date the paternity dispute is reported to the CSA, if however the NRP reports a dispute and does not take action to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage within a reasonable time the case worker can decide to issue a refuse to review – example of which would be NRP calls CSA 1st March 2010 and states they dispute paternity of QC A, is advised to apply to court for Declaration of Non-parentage but fails to apply until 20th Nov 2010 a case officer may decide to issue a Refuse to Review letter on 30th June (these timescales are not specific). If NRP does not provide the Declaration of Non-parentage within a reasonable time but contacts the CSA to report that there are delays due to PWC not complying with the court the dispute can remain open. Paternity of QC(s) can be presumed on any application where the NRP does not respond to MEF calls and fails to return the MEF form. If paternity is presumed and NRP later disputes this NRP will be required to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage via the courts. Paternity – re-applications If a PWC closes a case where paternity was previously accepted by the NRP and at a later date the PWC submits a re-application the NRP will be contacted – again initially by phone and if no response MEF form and covering letter – NRP will be asked if they accept paternity of QC(s) – paternity of a QC accepted in a previous case can be denied in a re-application. Paternity of QC(s) previously denied and proven via DNA testing cannot be denied on a re-app. If paternity is disputed for QC(s) on a re-application DNA testing will be offered on the same basis as paternity denied for QC(s) on a new application
section 20 in court to get a DNA test carried outApplication to the courts under Family Law
At any time the alleged non-resident parent or the parent or person with care can apply direct to a court for the courts to determine parentage.
These decisions are binding on the CSA.
When an application is made, the courts will usually request DNA tests.
What happens once the dispute is resolved?
If the alleged non-resident parent is proved to be a parent of the child any unpaid arrears of maintenance will be due. The CSA will take enforcement action if it is not paid.
If an alleged non-resident parent is proved not to be a parent of a child either by a DNA test result, or a declaration made by a court, the CSA will revise its decision. Any maintenance previously paid can be paid back.
paternity testing fill in a court C1 form A week later you should receive a letter detailing the judges comments The application should be for a Declaration of Parentage whether you are or are not a parent under S55A Family Law Act 1986 and commenced by a petition
John:- Ask the CSA to supply you with the booklet CSL110. ” Disputing parentage and DNA testing”.
Here’s the link to the CSL100 for you John
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qyrz7oVP14EJ:webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060213205513/csa.gov.uk/pdf/english/leaflets/new/CSL110.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESinyAGBqBH8Xot8hK7004azLzApRFnDGf6YWZAkI-MqwUiHznACEn-yDz7Bv75znrvYifq_0Uhap4xrznmIQBKGSt1rvPrJ4JxdXn3afvAHvcTSfWlhVi3gPzfC455qs7kJE3aM&sig=AHIEtbTAp7dYz904tfI4xCi8zNf7FU1bWw
@ Chall, have you got a problem with me posting factual posts here for people to get help??? I know you run a group called a fairercsaforall, No offense the group has never helped me when desperatly needed, I have had to help myself through tough times where CSA are concerned, all i see here is you getting at me for trying to help people out of a shit time the way i did it for myself, without joining a group or paying massive amounts of money,
Lisa,
wlif suggested John ask the CSA to supply him with a copy of the CSL100 booklet, not sure why you should have an issue with me providing the link to such, after all it’s on the internet for all access…
@ Chall
I have no problem with you doing anything, just seems everytime i post you come back with smething else saying im wrong etc,
It is quite possible that Chall has the correct info and wishes to allow other people access to the correct info??
I have read a few of Chall’s postings, they seem as though they are vaild, concise and accurate, surely if people are looking for accurate, concise, facts, then does it really matter where or from whom they come??
It is also possible Lisa, that sometimes your info is incorrect, out-dated or even possibly copied from another author??
Just an observation.
Doh, added the wrong link, sorry – Link below is for the CSL110 ” Disputing parentage and DNA testing”.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qyrz7oVP14EJ:webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060213205513/csa.gov.uk/pdf/english/leaflets/new/CSL110.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESinyAGBqBH8Xot8hK7004azLzApRFnDGf6YWZAkI-MqwUiHznACEn-yDz7Bv75znrvYifq_0Uhap4xrznmIQBKGSt1rvPrJ4JxdXn3afvAHvcTSfWlhVi3gPzfC455qs7kJE3aM&sig=AHIEtbTAp7dYz904tfI4xCi8zNf7FU1bWw
@ Topper
No the information is correct, and to be fair was taken from the CSA website, i dont copy other peoples work, this is also clarified as being correct from correspondance to CSA regarding a man on our facebook group who is facing a similar problem