Should men get their child maintanance back?

[kimberley123]

I was watching a programme the other day and it really made me think. It was about a man who had brought a child up as his own for 12 years as his own and had always believed it was his. Then the mother told him that it wasnt his. And the dna proved it. Shouldn't he be entitled to all the money back from the mother if he wanted it back?

[boyfriday]

..did the confession affect his relationship with the child?

[rubydazzler]

I was watching a programme the other day and it really made me think. It was about a man who had brought a child up as his own for 12 years as his own and had always believed it was his. Then the mother told him that it wasnt his. And the dna proved it. Shouldn't he be entitled to all the money back from the mother if he wanted it back?

I suppose if he didn't care anything about the child, just because it was proved not to be physically his child, maybe there would be a case. But he should really get his money from the natural father?

 

But what sort of a person could act like that towards an innocent child whom they surely must love after bringing it as their own?

[Berberis]

..did the confession affect his relationship with the child?

 

In a society where a DNA match means you HAVE to pay no matter what relationship you have, the reverse should also be true.

[boyfriday]

In a society where a DNA match means you HAVE to pay no matter what relationship you have, the reverse should also be true.

 

I agree, assuming he was a reluctant 'parent' and contributor to the child's upkeep-but he may well still consider the child is his daughter and she regards him as her father.

[foxforcefive]

In a society where a DNA match means you HAVE to pay no matter what relationship you have, the reverse should also be true.

 

I think so too in the case of the CSA.

[Berberis]

I agree, assuming he was a reluctant 'parent' and contributor to the child's upkeep-but he may well still consider the child is his daughter and she regards him as her father.

 

Then it should be voluntary and only once the man has the facts, not due to a lie. This woman has a lot to answer for and should be charged with fraud in my view.

[scoop]

Then it should be voluntary and only once the man has the facts, not due to a lie. This woman has a lot to answer for and should be charged with fraud in my view.

 

Maybe she also thought he was the childs father?

 

If he believed himself th be the Dad then it was correct that he paid cild maintenance.

 

To those who say he may have been a 'reluctant fathe'r, well if he believed himself to be the childs father, then he should have been acting like one, if he didn't then the low down bugger deserves all he gets.

[boyfriday]

Then it should be voluntary and only once the man has the facts, not due to a lie. This woman has a lot to answer for and should be charged with fraud in my view.

 

Hmm, there are probably thousands of men who are bringing up children that aren't theirs without their knowledge.

 

I dont believe it's as clear cut as you suggest. If there was malicious intent on the mother's part and it can be proven, then criminal charges might be appropriate, but it very much depends on the circumstances that exist now and existed at the time of the birth of the child. in my opinion, although I'd agree that she has some issues to address-principally with her daughter and also with the man involved.

[ricgem2002]

I suppose if he didn't care anything about the child, just because it was proved not to be physically his child, maybe there would be a case. But he should really get his money from the natural father?

 

But what sort of a person could act like that towards an innocent child whom they surely must love after bringing it as their own?

what about the mother keeping this a lie all this time what does that make her