Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Exp DNA tested our Dc behind my back

83 replies

bongobaby · 01/12/2013 11:21

I am beyond angry that exp ordered a DNA testing kit from the Internet on our then 7 year old and took a swab from his mouth.This was done on a contact visit and I have just found out what he had done, dc now is ten, im so upset and raging that he did this to dc.
I dread to think what my dc was thinking "why is daddy doing this".
His then girlfriend at the time was putting doubts into his head that dc looked nothing like him and that's why he did it. Surely this is not right behind my back.

OP posts:
Original poster
bongobaby · 01/12/2013 16:53

Ds was born before 2003 and has his birthday in the next few weeks. I totally think that he had no right to do it and it was uncalled for. I never have trusted him and this further proves why I can never trust him again.

OP posts:
perfectstorm · 01/12/2013 16:54

Contact was court-ordered though, Sock. The ex may well have had PR acquisition raised in those contact proceedings, no?

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 16:55

Then he has committed a crime,

(Normal exemption if he's obtained a residency order/pr order)

perfectstorm · 01/12/2013 16:57

Sorry Bongo, x-posted.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 16:58

A contact order wouldn't do that but a residency order would

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 17:01

But interestingly a residency order if its discharged or varied in several ways results in the pr being discharged as well from the person who obtained it by way of the residency order.

perfectstorm · 01/12/2013 17:04

I know a contact order wouldn't, but I was told it's not uncommon for PR to be applied for simulaneously in contact proceedings, and a shared residence order wouldn't be needed with a biological parent - my understanding is the threshold to confer PR is pretty low in that scenario. Is that wrong?

Umpire · 01/12/2013 17:05

Steer well clear of your x and his gf OP.
My x was abusive as well and i am not wasting a shred of energy supporting his family or new partner.
As for dna testing, yes it is an insult , but this guy is physically abusive and you are scared of him and he doesnt pay maintenance.

Get a solicitor to send him a letter asking for a copy of the results.

perfectstorm · 01/12/2013 17:12

Does your DS actually want to see his dad, OP?

I'm not sure asking for the test results would achieve anything useful. The OP knows exactly who her child's father is and raising it with him is just going to cause more drama, surely. If it's even true - the ex gf sounds pretty obnoxious in her own right.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 17:14

I don't know if its usual in very recent years, but it was not usual a few years ago,you would be surprised about how little people who didn't need to know know about pr. and how few dads without it bothered to try and get it.or even just assumed it was automatic.

Pr orders can be easy to obtain but they are not a slam dunk on application

Biological parents can get shared residency orders

Original poster
bongobaby · 01/12/2013 17:27

A contact order was in place and has been since ds was little.

OP posts:
perfectstorm · 01/12/2013 17:42

Well no, they wouldn't be a slam dunk or you wouldn't need a court order, but the cases we were given (this is several years ago though, so probably irrelevant now) were surprisingly low-threshold from memory - not actually being a threat plus being the bio parent seemed enough? I did know most people didn't understand the significance of PR, and that partly drove the change in the law re. conferral via birth registration, but the expectation seemed to be that solicitors would seek to obtain it alongside proceedings for contact, because they would grasp what it meant.

I know bio parents do get shared residence, and it needn't reflect the actual care arrangements being in any way equal time, but isn't that relatively new as a development, with contact to one and residence to the other the default prior? I thought that was also a shift?

(Sorry, OP - genuinely interested in picking Sock's brains here, hope you don't mind!)

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 18:19

bongo

So just a contact order,no pr order no residency order and no later marriage to each other?

perfect yes that was the expectation but it often did not happen,and lots of dads tend to self rep as well so little or no legal advice and if they do are advice the bits that stick in the brain are the essential bits not the other stuff. To a dad whose not bothered by lack of pr uninterested in funding the chid who feels he has some power over the mum because of fear unless he figures out its a great way to further bully her in a legally sanctioned way then he's not going to bother.especially if he's the type that thinks its ok to commit a crime cos his gf said so.

The threshold for obtaining pr against the mothers wishes is quite low and I've seen some shocking cases where you wouldn't have expected the dad to obtain it (think convicted pedophile applied whilst in prison) but ive also seen some you would expect to get it fail.

As a very basic your expected to have a active role,pay maintainance inline with income and a couple of other things and its not usually a great move if you sit in court and say you only want it so you can abduct the child or that you hate being a dad and just want to piss the mother off.(I've heard both more than once).

But for a decent person whose a ok parent then it would be very easy and has been for ages.

Don't know where I saw this figure but apparently these days its only about 7% of children whose dads are unnamed on bc and there's an assumption that its a lack of education or the dad is actually unknown IME i reckon a fair few of those are due to rather intelligent mums who worked out that the dad having pr could be a huge issue for the child's future due to abuse but that's IMHO.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 18:22

Oh forgot to add Ime a lot of pr requests via solicitors got dropped by agreement due to a bargaining thing with contact.

What used to be fairly regular was EOW contact so mum would offer EOW plus a overnight during the week if they dropped it type thing.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 18:27

Let's not get funny here. He may not have parental responsibility on paper, but he was consistently in DCs life. A swab is nothing. The general assholeness is.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 18:33

It does not matter,its against the law. He should not have done it and if he stated he had the ops consent then he also committed fraud.

He should have asked her. It is not reasonable to break the law unless your doing so to save a life or other such noble cause ( not sure the courts would agree with me on that one they tend to frown a bit at breaking any laws for any reason)

Original poster
bongobaby · 01/12/2013 18:43

Contact order is once a month contact. Can I ask what a residence is perfect

OP posts:
IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 18:54

Here's quite a good guide

www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/Legal/residence_orders_2011.pdf

hipocondriaco · 01/12/2013 18:55

I never have trusted him and this further proves why I can never trust him again.

So you don't trust him but expect him to trust you?

As for those hinting at getting a conviction because he may not in some legal technicality be 'parentally responsible'...

Original poster
bongobaby · 01/12/2013 18:56

Sock no later marriage, no pr just contact order

OP posts:
Original poster
bongobaby · 01/12/2013 19:32

So you don't trust him but expect him to trust you.

I don't trust emotionally and physically abusive ex. Him expecting me to trust him after how he has been is a bit rich.
My concern is the behaviour of him and his ex gf around ds on contact visits.

OP posts:
IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 19:56

Hipo.

I'm not hinting at getting a conviction I'm outright saying he has broken the law.

There are some very good reasons for the HTA.

If he didnt trust the op he should have either asked her or got a court order not broken the law.

BrandybuckCurdlesnoot · 01/12/2013 20:09

It's likely he didn't knowingly break the law. Very worrying that the company allowed the test to be performed without proof of PR. They should have insisted on it and he then would have discovered that it was illegal.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/12/2013 20:21

He would have had to state he had it.

And if he thought it was ok why the deceit why not openly do it.

BrandybuckCurdlesnoot · 01/12/2013 20:43

I wasn't saying he thought it was ok to do. It's pretty obvious that he was well aware telling the OP he wanted a DNA test would go down terribly. Who knows why he did it.

But I am still shocked if the company would have allowed a test to be done without actual proof of PR by way of a birth certificate or PR order/agreement. Any man could claim to have PR of a child when they do not. The company shouldn't take someone's word for it.

If a law has been broken, the company are just as much to blame.