[Solved] There should be a law...

I am sorry you have been trapped in a situation roadkill 🙁

Before we go any further, do you want rights over the child? Regardless of not knowing where she is, you can still make an application to the court and if you are on benefits you may be exempt from paying court fees.

Hi Roadkill

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you here - the point is not whether you are on the birth certificate or not, or whether contact is happening - that's a separate issue altogether. The point about maintenance is the fact that there is a child who needs financial support and whatever the rights and wrongs on how conception occurred, that child had absolutely no choice in the matter.

Actually, actd, with all due respect - you're missing the point. A child needing financial support (her mother has her own business, so no problem there anyway), is NOT the issue here. The real issue is that of my rights. And any man's rights in this situation. She has the power of the law behind her, no matter how misguided and one-sided it may be, and organisations like CSA just perpetuate this. But who defends me? Who protects me? Nobody. Where's my voice? Not allowed one.

I agree the child had no choice in the matter, but that argument is all a bit Jeremy Kyle to be honest, and simply serves to cloud the real issues - there's a bigger picture here - a much more insidious one.

And, Enyamachaela - no, I have no interest in any rights over the child, so that's not an issue.

But thank you both for your replies. It's good at least to talk about it.

No, I'm not missing the point - a child needs financial support. What you are saying is that because the mother has a business, you should be absolved from paying towards a child that you conceived. What rights do you want - to be able to father a child and walk away without any responsibility? And if even if she has her own business, contributions from you may allow her to spend a little less time in that business and a little more time with her baby, since you don't seem to want to have any responsibility in that direction. And what if she didn't have the business, would that change your expectations? You had the rights whether or not to sleep with her, and whether or not to take adequate protection. The law seeks to look after the child, not your ex and that is something you should both contribute towards.

I agree 100% with actd,

you had the chance to protect yourself and didn't, you left it up to her to be responsible. You may feel hard done by, but what about your ex and your child, I dare say they feel hard done by too as your ex has to care for your child and your child has no father in thier life.

you are responsible to pay as you have been and i'm glad to hear you have done that.

Maybe in the future you may decide you want to be part of this childs life, maybe you won't but you have a responsibility none the less.

I don't think the coment of the child not having a chioce is jeremy kyle, at all. This child didn't have a choice to be born, only you and the mother were able to make the decision to ensure there was no child, your ex decided to to protect for what ever reason (maybe she did and it didn't work through illness ect) and as said you decided not to protect against it either, really the 2 of you are responsible for the up bringing of this child, your ex didn't want you to be and it doesn't seem like you put up much of a fight to try and be, you can't expect not to support the child with finance.

Just think a couple of pounds for condoms could have saved you lots of pounds in child support!!

GTTS

Thank you both for your responses. I'll make this the last one on the subject as I'm sure you all have better things to be talking about.

You are, unfortunately, completely missing the point. To use a metaphor - what you're saying is like stealing somebodies car then still charging him the cost of tax and insurance. It was his choice to have a car - but he didn't choose to have it stolen.

The issue here is NOT about the child needing financial support (and yes, sorry, but that argument is extremely Jeremy Kyle and has nothing to do with the real issue, which, as I've said - you're all missing).

Firstly, GTTS, she CHOSE not have the father in the child's life. As I'm sure can be inferred from the original posting.

Let me try another metaphor - somebody asks you to shoot them with a rifle, they tell you they're wearing body armour and it'll be ok. So you do. But wait! They weren't wearing any! They lied! You have shot and killed him! Now YOU have to pay the price for the rest of your life because somebody lied and deceived you for their own selfish ends.

Do you understand? She trapped a man into a lifetime of financial and moral responsibility because she was obsessed with having a baby - that's all she wanted. As soon as that was secure - the man was dismissed. Now tell me, Jeremy Kyle and other 2-dimensional knee [censored] responses aside - is that right? Is that fair? Is it right that any woman in theory could do this to any man? What I am saying is that there is a MUCH bigger problem here than who pays for the child - There is a fundemental wrong been done. But the victim - me - has absolutely no rights to fight it, no voice in law or society to argue it. Everything is on the woman's side, or yes, the child's side - which obviously by default becomes the woman's side.

THAT IS THE POINT. I hope it never happens to you - but at least then you'll understand the real issue. Because at the moment - you can't seem to see deep enough.

Thank you. I won't read any further replies. This obviously isn't the forum for such issues. I wish you all the best.

(Just to say though, so you don't get the wrong opinion about me - I have another daughter, 7 years old - my first child. She was wanted , planned, discussed, everything. And I am more than happy to pay for her and buy her anything I can, it's not even a 'thing'. That's the difference. - That's the point).

Take care everybody. Happy Dad'ing.

It boils down to responsibility ....you were naive to take her word about contraception, and think that you had no responsibility to protect yourself. She may have been after a sperm donor, and you by shelving your own responsibility to protect yourself played right into her hands. Yes she was wrong to dupe you but you were also wrong not to protect yourself.

I can understand your bitterness as you never wanted this child and feel conned, but the fact remains the child is here and you have a duty to provide for him/her...you know that you should have protected yourself and you're probably still angry with yourself about that. The points that actd and GTTS are valid, you just don't like what they have to say.

It nobody else's responsibility but your own to protect yourself, you didn't, accept that you were wrong not to and move on....otherwise the bitterness will continue to twist you up.

Nanny Jane and all the others who posted in reply to Roadkill

I'm in exactly the same boat as Roadkill, 10 years ago believed a woman of 30 years old (i was 26 at the time) when she informed me she could not have children due to a 29 week miscarry, this turned out to be a lie and after 3 weeks i ended the relationship. We never co-habit ed or spoke about having children, we had a fling.

what i would like to ask you is t what point during the 3 weeks was it the baby-infatuated woman's responsibility TO NOT LIE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONCEIVE!!!

its easy to say to Roadkill "oh you should have used protection" I bet none of you are in the position we are. All we did wrong was trust the wrong person.

In my case I have proof in the form of a email from this woman where she admits that she used me to get pregnant so she could replace her dead baby, but guess what, no one cares, not the government, not the CSA no -one. This woman admits to using me and is now happy to take £45 a week from my wage to raise a child she was desperate to have, Do you still believe its my responsibility now??

Until you have gone through what me and Roadkill have you have no right to judge or have a opinion on this matter.

I m not judging either of you but stating the facts. People lie, even people that we might have known for years!

Tez....You knew this person for all of three weeks do you not think it was naive of you to believe everything she said? Have you never told a lie? The reason the authorities arnt responding to your argument is because child maintenance has nothing to do with you or the mother it's all about providing for the child that you both helped create.

If you and Roadkill didn't want others opinions on this subject then you shouldn't have posted on a public forum....you can't say don't have an opinion on the matter when you put it forward for discussion.

As sad as it is as NJ has said people lie, it's not a nice side of life but it is just that life.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions a female can decide she needs a sperm donner and lie to get the guy to not use protection, a guy has the choice to believe the female and not use protection they aren't forced into not using any.

I think the whole shoot me I'm wearing a vest theory is no better than what's already been said, if you choose to believe and pull the trigger than more fool you.

I have been in a situation where I was told someone couldn't become pregnant I trusted what I was told but still chose to use protection myself, dispute the pregnancy concern there is always a health concern.

GTTS

Typical response from single minded people, here is a revelation for you, there is a shade called grey you know.

Roadkill and myself are not questioning whether or not people lie, i speak for myself when i say I know people lie. what i believe RK is trying to say is, where is the law to protect the men that are deceived into a pregnancy??

If they obtain money or a TV through deception that's classed as fraud but when its a child then that's okay??

Don't think for one minute that the government of this pathetic land has not realized that this is a growing concern. women of all ages are using children as currency to fund a lifestyle they see as a work free life. That's what this boils down to, women having children to innocent victims so they can sit on benefits for another 16 years, add on the extortionate money the CSA bleeds from us and these women lives better than the majority of the working county.

But when bleeding heart liberals come out with your "its not the child's fault" or "you made the mistake, your responsible" you take away the power this country had to make a change in the laws to stop women from exploiting the benefit system. This child is 11 years old and Ive only just started paying CSA, so in reality, you have been paying for my child, not me.

Consider this, this child leaves school at 16 and the Child Benefit that the mother has claimed for 16 years stops, she then send him to college so she can continue claiming it as well as the maintenance from me. after 4 years of wasting his time as hes probably as lazy as his mother he leaves college and goes straight onto JSA, 2 years down the line and hes still on JSA and now hes committing crime and/or doing drugs (I say this as a possibility as where he lives the majority of people end up this way) would you still look at this child as "oh, its not his fault or would you then say, "hes a financial burden to this country like you should consider him now.

that may sound harsh but I dont see much of a future for this child, when you are brought into this world in the manner this child was your already facing a uphill battle, but the women dont care about that when the deposit hits there bank account. if we started holding the mothers more accountable, and removed benefits for unjust, deliberate single parent pregnancies then maybe that would lower the rate and thus reduce the amount of YOUR hard earned money being used to support these baby factories