- July 7, 2024
- Posted by: legaleseblogger
- Category: Related News
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
A Disturbing Encounter: A Man’s Concern About Paternity and Child Maintenance
The Incident
Two months ago, I had consensual sex with a woman who used a female condom. However, during the act, she excused herself to the bathroom, claiming she had a pubic hair caught in her teeth. We resumed the sex, and I finished inside her. After going to the toilet, I noticed that the female condom was in the bin, which she had removed.
Reporting the Incident to the Police
That evening, I called the police non-emergency number to report the incident. The police advised me that, under the current laws in England and Wales, only a man can be held accountable for removing a condom, not a woman. Therefore, they informed me that no crime had been committed under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The case was subsequently dropped, but the police did speak with the woman, warning her against similar behavior in the future.
Angry Reactions and New Developments
I received a text message from the woman, where she angrily berated me for reporting her to the police. Recently, I discovered that she is pregnant, which I confirmed by buying a home pregnancy test and observing her use it. Although our relationship was exclusive at the time of conception, I am 99.99% certain that I am the father.
Concerns About Child Maintenance
The thought of paying child maintenance is overwhelming me. I never wanted children, and this situation is a result of the woman’s deliberate actions. She not only removed the female condom but also lied about using other forms of contraception, as evidenced by a written text message admission.
Seeking Help with Legalese
In light of these circumstances, I am seeking assistance in understanding my options for avoiding child maintenance. With the help of AI Legalese Decoder, I aim to unravel the complexities of the law and explore any possible grounds for relief.
AI Legalese Decoder Can Help
AI Legalese Decoder is a cutting-edge tool designed to decipher complex legal documents and provide accurate, easy-to-understand explanations. In my situation, AI Legalese Decoder can help me:
- Understand the laws governing paternity and child maintenance: AI Legalese Decoder can analyze the relevant laws and regulations in England and Wales, providing me with a clear understanding of my rights and responsibilities.
- Identify potential grounds for avoiding child maintenance: By applying the insights gained from AI Legalese Decoder, I can explore potential arguments and defenses that may help me avoid paying child maintenance.
- Develop a legal strategy: AI Legalese Decoder can assist me in crafting a comprehensive legal strategy, taking into account the specific circumstances of my case and the relevant laws and regulations.
- Navigate the legal system with confidence: With AI Legalese Decoder’s guidance, I can make informed decisions and communicate effectively with legal professionals, giving me the confidence to navigate the complex legal system.
By leveraging AI Legalese Decoder’s capabilities, I can work towards a more favorable outcome in this challenging situation and protect my financial and emotional well-being.
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
Please provide the content you’d like me to rewrite, and I’ll help you expand it, format the headings, and incorporate how AI Legalese Decoder can assist with the situation.
(If you don’t have specific content in mind, I can provide a general outline on how AI Legalese Decoder can help with understanding and decoding legal documents. Just let me know!)
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
****** just grabbed a
You consented to the physical act of sex whilst your partner wore a female condom, you quite explicitly did not consent to the physical act of sex without a condom.
I would suggest that given (relatively) recent case law being established that this vitiates consent that the officer was wrong and that you should make a complaint, especially since the forensic window has been lost (although if the child is yours then that goes some way to proving that that act occurred should they deny it) and they’ve already dealt with the matter (poorly). It must be said however that this particular scenario is untested as far as I’m aware.
The offence that they would be guilty of is this one: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/causing-sexual-activity-without-consent
>I was advised that current law in England and Wales only applies to a man removing a condom, not a woman removing a condom. Therefore, they said that no crime had been committed under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>The case was dropped at this point,
This seems odd. Just because something hasn’t happened before, that doesn’t make it legal. Especially with such obvious parallels to existing law.
>Are there any grounds on which I can avoid having to pay child maintenance? I feel like this is going to ruin my life. I never wanted children, and this individual deliberately removed a method of contraception (as well as lying about using other contraceptives – something which I have a written admission of in a text message.)
Unfortunately no. Even if she was literally convicted of rape/sexual assault, you would still be on the hook for child support.
There are no legal exemptions for victims of rape/sexual assault from paying child support. The position of the law is simply that the child exists and that the child is legally entitled to be supported by both of its parents. The circumstances of the child’s conception are almost entirely irrelevant (save for things like sperm donation through a licensed clinic or other regulated conception method that meets the HFEA criteria).
It’s section 4 of the sexual offences act…she has committed an offence…IAAL
You might be able to bring a civil claim against her, if her deception has caused you a financial loss (if she told you that she was wearing a condom before you had sex and didn’t tell you that she’d removed it, it could be classed as fraud by false representation) but unless she’s wealthy enough to repay you for any child support you have to pay and still have enough money to cover the costs of raising the kid, I doubt a court would order her to pay you even if you win.
“I called the police on the non-emergency number that evening and explained the situation. I was advised that current law in England and Wales only applies to a man removing a condom, not a woman removing a condom. Therefore, they said that no crime had been committed under Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This is incorrect and is a good example why you should accept legal advice from the police. They’re not lawyers.
It is correct that there have been no reported cases where this has been tested in relation to a woman removing a condom (male or female) surreptitiously, but the case law is pretty clear that consent is vitiated when a condom is removed because it affects the nature and quality of the act in two ways (i) the simple nature of there being a physical barrier (Lawrence) and (ii) ejaculation into a condom is fundamentally different from ejaculation inside a person’s body (Assange). The sex of the parties makes no difference in this respect (cf deception as to biological sex).
On the facts as you present them, you consented to sex with a condom and were deceived into sex without one. Consent was therefore vitiated and the woman was guilty of sexual assault (not rape because she wasn’t the one penetrating). As the offence involved penetration and ejaculation, caused by her, these are both aggravating factors.
You should get a paternity test, maybe you’ll be lucky and its not yours.
NAL
>*Are there any grounds on which I can avoid having to pay child maintenance?*
Unless you arent the father – then as far as im aware – No.
When you called 101, was you spoken to by an actual officer in person or over the phone the next day or something? An operator cant say no crime was committed and therefor cant deal with and ideally should be reviewed by a Sexual Offences Detective.
As its not Rape, your consent to have sex was that she was to wear a female condom and that if you knew she hadnt had one on, you wouldnt have consented to sex – therefor sexual assault? Perhaps? But the issue that you continued with the sex so consented to sex but under the presumption she had a female condom on? Seems a male can be done for removing a condom and continuing sex as the female only consented to sex if it were on, so I dont see why the same cant happen here, just the other way round.
Its also similar to where a female doesnt consent to being ejaculated in, but you do it anyways = rape.
Its a rather tricky in my head – But I’d looking at sexual assault.
Looking at Section 76 Sexual Offences Act, I dont think our situation here fits but there is probably a case law regarding certain things but you were decieved into continuing the sex and that the defendant would reasonably believe you wouldnt have consented to the sex if she hadnt wore protection. Someone correct me or make me sound sense?
Two points that i will keep brief;
1. You took part in the activity and therefore the child is yours so you need to support it. No contraception is 100% effective and you always run the risk of pregnancy. Because you were simply deceived by the mother does not absolve you of your duties to provide for the child.
2. **Ring up and make a complaint**, whoever you spoke to is an idiot. You cannot be raped by a woman so that’s out the window (i noticed another comment mention something), but you most definitely have been sexually assaulted. They have CAUSED YOU TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITHOUT CONSENT. The way I would push this forward is; that they have caused you to engage in the activity (sexual intercourse), without your consent (condom was a must have) and they reasonably believed you would not consent ( condom removed secretly). In my opinion, and im open to challenge on this if i really have the wrong end of the stick, that is god awful policing.
The only way out of paying child maintenance is to go for 50:50 custody, not sure how likely it is to go through courts though
[removed]
If you’ve had sex on multiple occasions the pregnancy could have occurred at any time. Failure rate for female condoms is around 5% with perfect use, 21% with typical use.
They’re a bit rubbish, that’s why nobody uses them anymore and you can hardly buy them anywhere.
I hope you’re going to ensure she has a paternity test before anything else.
Unfortunately (and I think it stinks), even if she is convicted etc then it will be highly doubtful you’ll not have to pay child support. The state always takes the welfare of the child into consideration first.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I strongly encourage you to take this further with the police. Police officers are humans and get things wrong all the time. You need to advocate for yourself and don’t delay this. Ring them today.
As people have mentioned you will be required to pay child support if the child is proved to be yours.
But if the mother was convicted and recieved a prison sentence (unlikely imo but that’s a different debate) and the child went into foster care your liability can be reduced or nulled. If the child was adopted you would have no liability.
This woman is a sexual criminal and I’m sorry this happened to you.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]