Mark Moore (Declaration of Parentage – Adult Applicant), Re

An adult may seek a declaration of parentage where the alleged parent has died. The absence of living persons whose interests may be affected does not necessarily prevent the court from hearing the application. The court may proceed where the statutory requirements are met and the evidence, including DNA evidence and supporting family evidence, establishes parentage to the required standard.

The applicant, aged 70, applied under Family Law Act 1986 section 55A for a declaration that a deceased Catholic priest was his biological father. He wished to use that parentage to support an application for Irish citizenship and to seek amendment of his birth certificate under section 14A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act.

The applicant’s mother, putative father and stepfather were dead. His half-brother’s whereabouts were unknown, and there were no identified living persons whose interests might be affected. The central issues were whether the court could proceed without respondents and whether the documentary, testimonial and DNA evidence established parentage.

1. The application was properly heard despite the absence of respondents. Although FPR Rule 8.20 required particulars of persons whose interests might be affected, no such living persons had been identified. The inability to satisfy FPR Rule 8.20(1) did not prevent the court proceeding in the circumstances.

2. Under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, the court could make a declaration concerning a person named in the application who had been the parent but had died. The death of the putative father therefore did not bar the application.

3. The evidence established the claimed biological relationship. It included the history of the putative father’s continuing relationship with the applicant’s mother and family, correspondence, photographs, evidence of the parents’ adultery, testimonials from members of the putative father’s family, and DNA testing. The Alphabiolabs test showed that the applicant and a niece of the putative father were 11 times more likely than not to be cousins.

4. The court was satisfied that Andrew Joseph Moore, known as Father Andrew, was the applicant’s father. The declaration sought was made under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986.