AB v CD (No 1)

The welfare of the child is paramount when deciding whether and when to disclose disputed paternity. The starting point is that a child should learn the truth sooner rather than later, but the court may delay or qualify disclosure where the child’s best interests require it. Disclosure of the biological father’s identity may properly be considered together with disclosure of non-paternity, particularly where the biological father is unaware of the proceedings and his response may affect what can safely be told to the child. Decisions on international travel should assess the risk of breach, the consequences of breach and available safeguards.

The applicant, AB, had always been regarded by C as his father, but DNA testing established that he was not C’s biological father. AB sought orders requiring C’s mother, CD, to disclose the identity of the biological father, X, and sought directions concerning when and how C should be told. CD supported disclosure of AB’s non-paternity but opposed immediate disclosure of X’s identity. The child’s guardian supported telling C both matters, subject to professionally assisted arrangements.

The court also determined issues concerning C’s overseas travel during the school holidays, parental responsibility, arrangements for spending time with AB, and the communication of information to X.

1. Biological paternity. The child’s welfare was paramount under Children Act 1989, s 1. The established starting point was that it was generally in a child’s interests to know the truth of disputed paternity. The court adopted the approach described in Re D (paternity) [2007] 2FLR 26 and Re H and A (children) [2002] 1FLR 1145. Departure from that approach required the child’s best interests to compel it.
2. C should be told sooner rather than later that AB was not his biological father. However, the identity of X should not be disclosed immediately. X was unaware of the proceedings, and his response could affect paternity, DNA testing, his possible involvement in C’s life, and the manner in which the information should be communicated. The issues should therefore be dealt with holistically rather than separated.
3. CD was ordered to disclose X’s name and contact details to her solicitors. A jointly approved letter, authorised by the judge, was to be sent to X seeking his response. The matter was listed for a further hearing within approximately five to six weeks. Any disclosure to C was to be sensitively managed, with professional assistance and appropriate consideration of the roles of CD and AB.
4. For the proposed overseas travel, the court applied the approach in Re A (a child) [2013] EWCA 1115: the magnitude of the risk of breach, the consequences of breach, and the available safeguards. The risk of CD retaining C in India was small. Security was provided through an undertaking that C would not meet X and a pledge over CD’s London flat. Permission to travel was granted for 14 days, rather than the requested 20.
5. AB was granted parental responsibility and a spend-time order. The parents were directed to use an application and accept mediation. AB was also directed to amend his financial claim to reflect his abandonment of reimbursement from CD.

First-instance judgment. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.