M (A Child)

M (A Child)

The order for DNA testing was not a mere case management decision but a serious step that should only be taken as a last resort. The necessity for DNA testing depends on whether, under Latvian law, the appellant’s rights of custody depend on biological paternity. The court should first obtain expert evidence on Latvian law before considering DNA testing.

Parties
Appellant: M (A Child); Respondent: Mother (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Child Abduction / Appeal From Order for DNA Paternity Testing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention, Paternity Testing, Custody Rights
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Paternity Testing Custody Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M (A Child)

Appellant

Mother (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Child Abduction / Appeal From Order for DNA Paternity Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order DNA paternity testing in Hague Convention proceedings before determination of rights of custody under Latvian law
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's rights of custody depend on biological paternity under Latvian law

Ratio Decidendi

The order for DNA testing was not a mere case management decision but a serious step that should only be taken as a last resort. The necessity for DNA testing depends on whether, under Latvian law, the appellant’s rights of custody depend on biological paternity. The court should first obtain expert evidence on Latvian law before considering DNA testing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 6 of the judge’s order for DNA testing is discharged