exists, and there is no wala' (patronage) upon the child because the default is its absence, so it is not established except by evidence.

Section: On the expressions by which an acknowledgement is established. If one says: "He has a thousand against me," or says to him: "Do I have a thousand against you?" and he says: "Yes," or "Certainly," or "You have spoken the truth," or "By my life," or "I acknowledge it," or "[I acknowledge] what you have claimed," or "[I acknowledge] your claim," he is an acknowledger in all of these cases. This is because these expressions were formulated for affirmation. God Almighty said: "Have you found what your Lord promised to be true? They will say, 'Yes.'" If he says: "Do I not have a thousand with you?" and he says: "Indeed (bala)," it is a valid acknowledgement, because 'bala' is an answer to a question posed with a negative particle. God Almighty said: "'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes (bala).'". If he says: "You have a thousand against me in my knowledge," or "in what I know," he is an acknowledger of it, [because what is in his knowledge implies nothing but obligation. If he says: "Pay me the thousand that I have against you," and he says: "Yes," he is an acknowledger of it]; because this is an affirmation of what he claimed. If he says: "Buy my slave here," or "Give me my slave here," and he says: "Yes," it is an acknowledgement, for the reason we mentioned. If he says: "[You have against me] a thousand, if God wills," he is an acknowledger of it. Ahmad stated this. The Shafi'i scholars said: It is not an acknowledgement, because he has attached his acknowledgement to a condition, so it is not valid, just as if he had attached it to the will of Zayd, and because what is attached to the will of God Almighty is impossible to know. Our argument is that he attached his acknowledgement to something that does not entirely negate it and does not redirect it away from being an acknowledgement, so what he acknowledged becomes binding upon him, and what he attached it to becomes void, just as if he said: "He has a thousand against me, except for a thousand." And because he followed the acknowledgement with something that does not provide a different ruling and does not entail the negation of the [original] ruling, it resembles [the case of] one who says: "He has a thousand against me in the will of God Almighty." If he says: "He has a thousand against me, unless God wills [otherwise]," the acknowledgement is valid, because he acknowledged it, then attached the negation of the acknowledgement to a matter that is not known, so it is not negated.