Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Lockdown 2: how does it affect child contact?
No sooner had clarity been obtained as to how child contact would work within and across the tier system, than the government announced its suspension in England.  From 5 November 2020, a 4-week...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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