Elliott v Ratcliffe

A court should make a declaration of parentage only when judicially satisfied that the evidence is accurate and reliable. Scientific DNA analysis may be reliable, but the court must also be satisfied that the tested samples came from the identified individuals. A vague assertion that identities were warranted by an independent third party is insufficient. The solemn and permanently binding nature of a declaration under the Family Law Act 1986 requires proper proof of the chain connecting the parties to the samples.

The applicant sought a declaration under section 55 A of the Family Law Act 1986 that he was not the father of the respondent. DNA testing reported that the applicant was excluded as the biological father. The applicant had not witnessed the respondent or his mother provide their samples. The testing company’s report did not identify where, when or by whom the samples were taken, or how the identities of the donors were verified. The central issue was whether the evidence established a sufficient chain between the named individuals and the samples analysed.

1. The application was adjourned. No declaration of parentage was made.
2. A declaration under section 55 A of the Family Law Act 1986 is a solemn legal act, binding and operative for all time and all purposes on the issue of parentage. Although the issue is determined on the balance of probabilities, the court must be judicially satisfied as to the accuracy and reliability of the evidence supporting the declaration.
3. The court did not doubt the reliability of the scientific testing or analysis performed by Dadcheck.com. That issue was distinct from proving that the samples tested were provided by the respective named individuals.
4. The report’s statement that the individuals had donated cheek samples and had their identities warranted by an independent third party gave no meaningful information about the time, place, person taking each sample, identity of the verifying person, or method of verification. It was therefore insufficient to establish the necessary evidential chain.
5. The application was to be relisted before another judge. Dadcheck.com was required to provide further and more specific information in accordance with the draft order.

The judgment records that the application was issued in Newcastle County Court on 20 September 2012. On 6 November 2012, District Judge Loomba directed DNA testing under section 20(1) of the Family Reform Act 1969. The High Court (Family Division) adjourned the application pending further evidence.