header-logo header-logo

27 September 2013
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Paternity—DNA testing—Jurisdiction

Re M (a child) (Paternity: DNA testing) [2013] EWCA Civ 1131; [2013] All ER (D) 148 (Sep)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Longmore, Underhill and Macur LJJ, 17 Sep 2013

DNA testing to establish paternity should not be ordered unless it is necessary for it to be done before a conclusion can be reached. It is best carried out in a welfare context and by the court of the child’s habitual residence.

Mark Jarman for the father. Robin Powell for the mother.

The proceedings concerned a child, L, born in 2008. The parents were Latvian nationals. Following their separation, the father had regular contact with L, and L resided with the father for a period while the mother worked abroad. In 2012, difficulties arose about the father continuing to have contact with L, resulting in the father issuing proceedings in Latvia. An agreement reached between the parents was recorded in an order of the Latvian court, which recorded that the father’s claim had been pursued to establish a procedure for exercising rights “with the daughter”.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll