Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think ex should pay for child even though not biologically his?

44 replies

woahthere · 12/03/2010 13:21

My ex has just left his horrible wife, they had 2 children together...or so he thought....
She applied to csa for maintenance but then he found out from the rumour mill that the first one wasnt his. He then contested that the child was his and made his ex - wife have dna test done to ascertain the truth. It turned out that boy is not his. He therefore refuses to pay maintenance. However he still maintains it makes no difference and in his eyes he is still his son. She wont let him see him now. Now I know what she is doing is really scummy and unfair on the child, but, I cant help but think that if he wants to claim the child as his own, then he should pay the same as his other child and not treat him any differently. What do you think?

OP posts:
Original poster
woahthere · 12/03/2010 14:11

when you put it that way geek it makes me think it probably isnt

OP posts:
2old4thislark · 12/03/2010 14:12

I think the law states that in this case the child was 'considered a child of the family'
so he would have to pay maintenance - regardless of whether he is the biological father.

bellissima · 12/03/2010 14:12

I think that obviously if a non-biological parent went for custody (would no doubt be limited circs of unfit parent or tragically dead parents - think Saint Bob) they would be expected to provide for the child, but for access then no. Of course any contested cases are always very sad all round, whatever the rights and wrongs. (And I can also imagine a considerable amount being spent on legal fees).

glitterkitten · 12/03/2010 14:12

I am a family solicitor.

LEGALLY child maintenance is not payable to a child who is not your natural child. DNA daddy should be pursued to contribute the maintenance.

Contact on the other hand would be decided on what is in the child's best interests, regardless as to the issue of maintenance and i would submit that this poor child will suffer tremendously if mum was able to pull contact on the basis that your ex wasn't paying maintenance. that child will be made to feel segregated from his siblings, he will be missing his "father" like crazy and will only suffer if his relationship with his "father" will not be promoted.

can you imagine if every mother out there who mislead a man regarding paternity had a right to claim maintenance from the person who had been fooled, otherwise there would be no contact? ridiculous!

child's mother makes me ashamed to be of the same species.

damnedchilblains · 12/03/2010 14:14

"If he wants to treat him as his son, then he should contribute to the cost of keeping him. Maintenance is for the child, not the wife. He is being unreasonable and it is horrible of him to differentiate between his children like that."

It is horrible but you have to remember that the father has just gone through a something pretty traumatic and is probably lashing out. He raised a child believing it to be his and then found out the mother lied. Maybe if he had known in the first place he would have still stayed with her, raised him as his own and this wouldn't be an issue now. I despise cowardly women who do this. Also, what happens if he keeps supporting the child and then the mother starts getting support from the childs actual father. then the little boy will have more than his other brother. Oh crap this is potentially oh so complicated.

I feel so sorry for the boy, it's him who will miss out and its shitty behaviour on the part of the mother.

I can kind of understand your interest op with your own children possibly being caught up in this. It is very hard for children to understand "actually he isn't your technically your brother any more" and it may place you in the uncomfortable position of having to explain it to them.

bellissima · 12/03/2010 14:14

2old4 might well know better than me. I have heard of 'tricked' non-biological parents not having to pay but that might just be in the US.

bellissima · 12/03/2010 14:16

Sorry - crossed with glitterkitten - we now have an expert and I'll shuddup. V sad though.

swanandduck · 12/03/2010 14:18

I don't think he should 'have' to pay maintainance but if I suddenly discovered that one of my children wasn't really mine (mix up at hsp or something) I would still 'feel' they were mine and would want to continue to support and raise them.

Rhubarb · 12/03/2010 14:27

When asked why do you care, your reply was this: "because my ex has 2 children with me and they have been led to believe they have 2 brothers...who they now cant see which is terribly sad for them."

Which is all about the effect on your boys.

It's complicated. Your ex was previously married and had 2 sons, then he married you and had a further 2 sons and now he's left you.

So did your 2 boys have much contact with the other 2 boys?

She has behaved appaulingly and so has he. And in the middle of it all is this child.

mayorquimby · 12/03/2010 14:42

"and so has he."

How exactly?

Original poster
woahthere · 12/03/2010 14:54

youre barking up the wrong tree rhubabrb, i shant say more about it, i know myself and the truth.
mine are a boy and a girl. they did have quite regular contact with him, ie whenever they saw their dad. the little boy doted on my daughter in particular, it must be so weird for him that he no longer sees her.

OP posts:
Rhubarb · 12/03/2010 14:57

Fair enough. Just thought it was a valid point to raise. You've clarified it now. Perhaps you shouldn't have put the thread in AIBU but in relationships?

Original poster
woahthere · 12/03/2010 15:21

no because i wanted to know if i was being unreasonable because i like to be given lots of view points, e.g the one by geek has made me wonder if it would be unreasonable. i dont agree with people jumping on a thread just to have a go. it would have been a valid point had it been accurate.

OP posts:
MumNWLondon · 12/03/2010 15:27

Personally I don't think he should have to pay. She cheated on him FFS, what a cheek to then ask him to pay.

If she doesn't want her son to see the man he thought was his daddy then she is very very selfish as well - and not thinking of her sons feelings. Does your ex see the other child?

That all being said its best to keep out of this.

Lasvegas · 12/03/2010 16:10

Whoathere, this woman is amazing. You would have thought she would be pleased that the 'Dad'
says "maintains it makes no difference and in his eyes he is still his son"

Why would she stand in the way of a child's relationship with 'Dad'? (asuming he is a good 'Dad')

If its any consolation when he is a teen he will be able to decide things for himself and if he wants to see your kids he can likewise if he wants to see 'Dad' he can. In meentime try and maintain contact help your kids send him a card to say thinking about you, we still want to be friends despite whats happened.

Could you explain to your kids that the mum of their 'half siblings' isn't happy about you and your Dad playing with 'half siblings' we hope she will change her mind.

starkadder · 12/03/2010 18:02

damnedchilblains - totally agree that the mother is very at fault, and sounds appalling.

But surely it is impossible for this man to say on the one hand that "it makes no difference" while on the other hand he's refusing to pay a penny for this boy's upkeep? If I were that boy, and I found out that my father, who apparently loved me just as much as my brother, refused to make any financial contribution for me, I'd be gutted. He should treat them equally or face up to the fact that he does feel differently about this boy now that he knows he's not his biological son. It's not fair to treat them differently but say you love them equally.

At the very least, if he doesn't end up paying maintenance, he should put the same amount into a savings account for this boy to access when he's 18 - but this would still be crap and unfair.

damnedchilblains · 12/03/2010 18:13

"Why would she stand in the way of a child's relationship with 'Dad'? (asuming he is a good 'Dad')" Lasvegas sometimes women are spiteful! Many women as well as men use children as pawns. Also, between now and the boys teens is a long time, it's likely if she breaks contact now, by the time he is a teenager he won't want to see the man anyway. Especially if she is constantly reminding him that he won't pay for him, or generally bad mouthing him.

Starkadder you're very right, technically if that's the way he feels than he really should just cough up the money, but I'm guessing all of this came around in a pretty bitter way and finances unfortunately are often the easiest way to make a point. But the savings account would be an excellent idea! It would avoid the old "I don't want money to go in her pocket" scenario, and the little boy would understand that he is loved as much.

GeekOfTheWeek · 12/03/2010 18:20

The saving account would be okay but then the other kids may be pissed off if they don't have one.

The mother should be ashamed.

starkadder · 12/03/2010 19:05

Yes, exactly. Doing things differently for them is just unfair and bound to cause all sorts of heartache.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page