Father not on birth cert of child

I believe that when claiming lone parents the SW ask who is the father. If one is named SW claw back the allowance from the named father. The birth cert with no father protects the father in these situations i.e. SW don't investigate further, regardless of the living arrangements of the parties.
 
Moral Ethos said:
The birth cert with no father protects the father in these situations i.e. SW don't investigate further, regardless of the living arrangements of the parties.
Click to expand...
I find that hard to believe especially if somebody reports suspected welfare fraud or SW suspect this themselves.
 
ClubMan said:
Rent Allowance is means tested in case that matters here. Since you mention illegality I presume that you suspected that it was a possibility in which case one might ask if you reported your concerns to the relevant authorities and, if not, why not? It's certainly not illegal to take charity from the VdeP even if you are not poor.
Click to expand...
If it was information I acquired in a personal capacity I might report it but as it may impact on my business and the relationships I have with other employees I would not do so in these circumstances.
I also find it unlikely that SW would act since the father’s name was not on the birth cert’s.

I agree on the charity point though I do find the idea of misrepresenting your circumstances in order to get charity reprehensible.
 
Purple said:
If it was information I acquired in a personal capacity I might report it but as it may impact on my business and the relationships I have with other employees I would not do so in these circumstances.

...

... I do find the idea of misrepresenting your circumstances in order to get charity reprehensible.
Click to expand...
Moral Ethos said:
I agree 100%.
Click to expand...
Some might say that the having good grounds for suspecting welfare fraud but turning a blind eye because it might impact on your own business/bottom line or your comfort zone with your employees is also reprehensible.
 
ClubMan said:
Some might say that the having good grounds for suspecting welfare fraud but turning a blind eye because it might impact on your own business/bottom line or your comfort zone with your employees is also reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Some might say that...
Some might look at reality and, knowing that no action will be taken by the authorities, make a call based on that reality.

Others don’t have to make those calls and don’t have to consider their own or their employees’ security and can comfort themselves with their self-righteous certainties.
 
Purple said:
knowing that no action will be taken by the authorities
Click to expand...
"Presuming" you mean?
... and can comfort themselves with their self-righteous certainties.
Click to expand...
Some might not take much comfort from the fact that there are others willing to turn a blind eye to such suspected fraud because their bottom line is more important.
 
ClubMan said:
"Presuming" you mean?
Click to expand...
No, I have reported the same thing in the past where a flat was provided for a mother and her three children and the father of those children lived with them. Not only did they SW not act but then they were given a house when the flats were being knocked down he was the primary contact when there were questions about how the house was to be finished. I won’t go into more detail in a public forum but if you are really interested I can PM you with names and locations.
ClubMan said:
Some might not take much comfort from the fact that there are others willing to turn a blind eye to such suspected fraud because their bottom like is more important.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean "line".
I have explained the context. If you choose you ignore or misrepresent it by selectively quoting from it that your prerogative.
 
I'm not ignoring or misrepresenting anything and I don't really have much time for those who prefer ad hominem attacks to arguing their own case... :rolleyes:
 
How typical that a thread which mentions single parents turns into a social welfare fraud conversation :rolleyes:
 
I know. But it is always inevitable. Even if she recieved maintenance from OPs friend she would be entitled to OPFA, rent allowance etc. Him being on the birth cert or not has very little to do with it on the basis of her entitlements. She would recieve the same amount at the end of the day, be it made up of maintenance and the rest social welfare or all social welfare but of course she must be trying to defraud the system (because that is societies biased view on single parents)

Nobody has asked the OP the reason the mother may have not wanted his friend on the birth cert. Is there a reason? Is she sure that he is the father or does she feel that she and the child are better off not having him named as the father. Has he threatened to take the child from her etc.
I know the thread has to be one sided as there is no way of getting the other side but it does grate that social welfare fraud always comes up whenever a single mother is mentioned.

So OP, would there be a valid reason(in her opinion) that the mother doesn't want the father named?
 
Moral Ethos said:
I believe that when claiming lone parents the SW ask who is the father. If one is named SW claw back the allowance from the named father. The birth cert with no father protects the father in these situations i.e. SW don't investigate further, regardless of the living arrangements of the parties.
Click to expand...


Can I also point out that if a woman is claiming OPFA and is living with ANYONE, regardless of if he is the father of the chld she loses OPFA and rent allowance (unless said partner is not working in which case they can probably both be on UB and claim rent allowance) so the living arrangements of the mother is ALWAYS monitored.
 
Ailbhe, I see your point on the perception of single parents and I agree that there is often a presumption that they are defrauding the state. In the cases I know of it was not single parents but two parent families who were lying in order to defraud the state by pretending that they were single parent families.
Ironically a close friend of mind is raising her daughter without the father (who lives abroad and has made it clear that he never wants to see his child) and she has never claimed any SW assistance despite her clear entitlement to it.
So I don’t have a low opinion of single parent families (which are most often women). I do have a low opinion of people who seek to fraudulently claim funds that are meant to help people who are faced with raising a child alone. I also have a low opinion of the authorities who are fully aware of what goes on and turn a blind eye.
 
I know. But it is always inevitable. Even if she recieved maintenance from OPs friend she would be entitled to OPFA, rent allowance etc. Him being on the birth cert or not has very little to do with it on the basis of her entitlements. She would recieve the same amount at the end of the day, be it made up of maintenance and the rest social welfare or all social welfare but of course she must be trying to defraud the system (because that is societies biased view on single parents)
Click to expand...

I agree that the majority of single parents dont defraud welfare, and most dont even claim welfare as are working etc. However, I'll tell you what the fraud is - this is based on the experience of a neighbour of mine.

This neighbour is happily married with young family. However, about 12 years ago he had a child in another relationship. The mother did the birth cert etc. He has paid generous maintenance (a lot more than legally required) ever since the birth of the child. About 5 years ago, he was contacted by Social Welfare who accussed him of not paying child support with threats that he would be taken to court and the money would be stopped from his salary. Luckily, this guy was good at record keeping (as well as not trusting the mother) and had paperwork to prove that he had made all his maintenance payments. The fraud is that the mother of the child was claiming that the father was not around/unknown and was claiming full OPFA AND receiving a very generous maintenance payment from the father (whereas the entitlement is tp OPFA less any maintenance paid). She subsequently got accussed of social welfare fraud etc.
 
I am aware that it goes on. However in this case there is no social welfare fraud. The OP claimed that his friends ex didn't put the father on the birth certificate as it meant she could defraud SW. However, she is not seeking maintenace from the OPs friend on top of her SW entitlements and then not declaring said maintainance which would be SW fraud. In the case of the OP it was wrong of him to jump to the conclusion that this woman has left the father off the birth cert so that she might defraud social welfare as he has said that she wants the child to have nothing to do with the OPs friend. That is not right but it is not SW fraud. But stereotypical views of single parents meant the OP jumped to the conclusion that the said mother must be doing it in order to obtain more money which I was pointing out is not the case.

I was commenting on this case not on the topic of SW fraud.
Thats a whole other thread IMO. And it is not limited to single parents.
 
Is there any specific reason why the OP does not want the father's name on the birth certificate?

Including the father's name on the cert does not confer any rights with regard to custody or guardianship - these are determined by an entirely seperate procedure.
 
I have no idea tbh. My brother lives with the child and mother and no SW is claimed except for CB. My brother is of the thinking, no father name on BC means little or no standing in a family law situation. She could leave in the morning with child in tow and as he is not on the BC, he has no comeback at all.

I have suggested sitting down with her and putting her straight.
 
Unless they are married he has no automatic rights. It doesn’t matter what’s on the birth cert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top