header-logo header-logo

16 February 2015
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

DNA tests to be funded

All family court judges will be given powers to order and fund DNA tests to determine a child’s parentage, from September.

Public funding for DNA, alcohol and drug testing was removed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, anecdotal evidence suggested the lack of tests was causing delays in private family cases, particularly where parentage was in question.

Two pilot DNA testing schemes were set up in Taunton and Bristol last year. The results were positive, suggesting judges could be more confident when making decisions about children and, most importantly, parents would be more likely to follow the court’s orders.

David Nicholson, a director at DNA Legal, which took part in the pilots, says: “The individuals involved were generally grateful to have the tests as it cut down on delays. 

“It helps everyone—the court, the parties involved and litigants in person. Previously, court hearings were being delayed because people could not afford the tests.”

The pilots also explored the use of alcohol and drug tests in family court cases. These results were inconclusive, so the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) is to test and develop a new, affordable model for delivering drugs and alcohol testing over the coming months.

Justice Minister Simon Hughes says: “Unambiguous and conclusive DNA tests will prove parentage and help to end acrimonious and embarrassing court battles.”

Meanwhile, it was announced this week that the Department for Education is to fund further Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) in England. Currently FDACs can be found in London, Gloucestershire and Milton Keynes.

Issue: 7641 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll