C v C

For private international law purposes, a foreign declaration of paternity may be recognised under the principle of jurisdictional reciprocity where the foreign court exercised a jurisdiction comparable to that claimed by the recognising court, subject to public policy. Recognition is not a rehearing of the foreign decision or an assessment of its factual correctness. Once recognised, the declaration establishes parentage for the relevant statutory purpose, so the Jersey court need not decide biological paternity afresh. Under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, ‘parent’ is an inclusive and non-exhaustive concept. Strict foreign rules limiting challenges to acknowledged paternity do not, without more, offend article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention.

The appellant had been registered in Latvia as the biological father of the respondent mother’s son after he and the mother had each represented that he was the father. Latvian proceedings to annul the registration failed, including because he did not establish that he was not the natural father. The mother later obtained a Jersey order requiring him to make periodical payments for the child.

The Registrar made the order in 2014. The Deputy Bailiff and the Court of Appeal of Jersey upheld the substantive order. The appeal concerned whether the appellant was a parent under the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, and whether Jersey had to determine biological paternity itself or recognise the Latvian declaration.

Appeal dismissed. The Board held that the appellant was a parent for the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

1. Article 1(1) uses ‘includes’, showing that the statutory definition of parent is not exhaustive. The reference to the father includes a biological father, whether or not he was married to the child’s mother. The separate reference to a biological father granted parental responsibility under article 5(2) does not narrow the earlier reference to the father.
2. The Latvian declaration of paternity fell to be recognised in Jersey. The Jersey courts have regard to the common law of England and Wales in private international law, as noted in Brunei Investment Agency v Fidelis Nominees Ltd [2008] JLR 337. The Board applied the principle of jurisdictional reciprocity articulated in Travers v Holley [1953] P 246 and reflected in In re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] Ch 831 and the majority decision in Indyka v Indyka [1969] 1 AC 33.
3. The relevant connections with Latvia included the mother’s and child’s nationality, residence and domicile, the child’s birth there, and registration of his birth there. Recognition did not depend on the Jersey court assessing whether the Latvian courts had reached the correct or reasonable factual conclusion. Subject to the exceptional public-policy jurisdiction, a recognising court does not mark the foreign court’s homework.
4. The appellant’s public-policy arguments failed. The Latvian court had rejected the allegation of fraud, and the limitation rule was only one of three reasons why annulment had failed. The Board noted, obiter, that the ECtHR had accepted a wide margin for national rules securing certainty and finality in family relations.

The Board advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The respondent’s costs claims, including the proposed indemnity basis, were left for further directions.

1. Privy Council: In [2019] UKPC 40, dismissed the appeal and advised that the Latvian declaration of paternity was recognisable in Jersey.
2. Court of Appeal of Jersey: In 2016, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Deputy Bailiff’s decision and upheld the substantive periodical-payments order.
3. Royal Court of Jersey, Family Division: The Registrar made the periodical-payments order in 2014. The Deputy Bailiff later set aside two collateral orders but dismissed the appeal against the substantive order.