divorce agrrement

[elle.b]

hi all, my husband and i divorced in 2007 at the time he agreed to pay me �300 a month maintenance for our 3 children.the youngest is biologically his and the eldest 2 he agreed to bring up as his own,we even went as far as putting his name on their birth certificates,which i know was very wrong but we did it.he hasnt paid me a penny for any of the children since then,claiming that he has no money.I know he is liable to pay for the youngest child but does he have an obligation to support the elder two kids,bearing in mind that he agreed to it the time of divorce? it was all done ammicably so there were no court orders or anything just what i guess were the standard divorce arrangements

[badbessie]

if you made a false statement on the birth certificate ie that he is the father, i believe you could find yourself in trouble. you even amit to making a false entry which i believe to a crimmal offence in england. He as no legal obligation to pay for children that are not his unless he formally adopted them.

[elle.b]

I know that making a false statement on birth certificates was wrong and i accept responsibility for that,ive never denied it and at the time of divorce i even made my solicitor aware of it.im seeing my solicitor next week to try and sort everything out but was just wondering if anyone knew anything about it.my thinking was that me and my ex are as guilty as each other and whilst im willing to accept any repercussions i just wanted to know if he would still be financially liable seeing as he signed the birth certificates in the full knowledge that they werent his children and he signed the divorce agreement saying he would pay the maintenance

[bednobs]

i would imagine you don't have a leg to stand on - ultimately he could demand a DNA test and when they were proven not to be his, it would absolve him of his obligations, wouldn't it?

you dont mention what the biological father(s) is doing to support his/their children - are you in touch? Do you know who they are?

[Ethel]

That is not true at all. A man who has raised children knowing he is not the biological father is still responsible for maintenance - he has treated them as 'children of the family'; they call him 'dad' and he is the father figure to them.

[badbessie]

there was case a few years back were a couple had a child by ivf, the donar was not the father. unfortunately for the child the couple parted. i believe the court ruled that under english law the the man could not held legally responsible for a child that was not biologically his. A sad ruling but it clearly states a man must be the biological father. the distress that it must have caused the child who i believe was 12 at time must have been immense. I believe children should be able to sue any man that breaches the trust that thay have placed in him

[Archburner]

Ethel's wrong. You are only eligible to have maintenance from the child's biological father. Accept it and move on especially since you indicate your still "friends"