header-logo header-logo

Paternity—DNA testing—Jurisdiction

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll