P (A Child)

P (A Child)

The deputy judge was entitled to conclude that it was in the child's interests for DNA testing to be undertaken to resolve paternity, and the direction was not outside the ambit of his discretion under s.20 Family Law Reform Act 1969. The child's opposition, while relevant, was not determinative, and there was no analogous vulnerability as in the distinguished case law.

Parties
Applicant: Mother; Respondent: Father (Mr W)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Paternity and Contact / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Paternity Testing, Best Interests of the Child, Contact Orders, DNA Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Applicant

Father (Mr W)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Paternity and Contact / Application for Permission to Appeal (refused)

  1. 1 Whether the deputy judge erred in directing DNA testing under s.20 Family Law Reform Act 1969 against the wishes of the child and mother
  2. 2 Whether the direction was in the best interests of the child
  3. 3 Whether the child's opposition to testing should be determinative

Ratio Decidendi

The deputy judge was entitled to conclude that it was in the child's interests for DNA testing to be undertaken to resolve paternity, and the direction was not outside the ambit of his discretion under s.20 Family Law Reform Act 1969. The child's opposition, while relevant, was not determinative, and there was no analogous vulnerability as in the distinguished case law.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused