Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

PATERNITY: Re D [2006] EWHC 3545 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : re-d-2006-ewhc-3545-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 20, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86929

(Family Division; Hedley J; 20 October 2006)

The child had been placed with the woman believed to be his paternal grandmother as a baby; he had occasional contact with the man believed to be his father but relied on the grandmother figure for parenting. His childhood had been a troubled one; he had a number of educational and behavioural problems. During a visit to the child on the child's 10th birthday, the man claiming paternity had announced that he was the child's real father. The child's adamant response was that he wanted nothing to do with the man, that the man was not his father, and that he would not participate in scientific testing.

Although the child was not competent in the Gillick sense, he did understand the essence of the issue between the adults, what testing meant and what its conclusions might be; his strong opposition was his own, and the whole issue of paternity was a big issue at a highly emotive stage of his life. It was in the child's best interests to know the truth sooner rather than later, but not in his best interest to press the issue now, given his other issues and his deep resistance to testing. The court directed that the man provide samples to be stored, and an order under Family Law Reform Act 1969, s 20(1) directing that a sample be taken from the child, stayed without limit of time but with liberty to restore. As the obtaining of such a sample was strongly in the long-term interests of the child this approach had the effect of securing fairness to the man whilst protecting the position of the child in terms of removing pressure from him at the present time. The guardian was to see the child, and explain that the issue of paternity should not be indefinitely put off, and that in the end truth was easier to live with than doubt.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from