Family Related Disputes in UK Law

Finally, I must say that over and above all the interests of the child, there is one overriding interest which must be considered. There is at hand in these days expert scientific evidence - by means of a blood test – which can in most cases resolve the issue conclusively. In the absence of strong reason to the contrary, a blood test should be made available.

In this case the child the subject of the proceedings (R) had a Guardian appointed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 as amended. However, that Guardian, for entirely understandable forensic reasons, regarded it as wholly inappropriate that the burden of cross-examining R's half-sister B, with whom she lives, should fall to the child's advocate. For reasons particular to the facts of that case which I need not describe further, I agreed.

Mr Mylonas protests that the emphasis on the ‘interests of justice’ by the judge does not justify an unprincipled extension to the jurisdiction. In my judgment, that submission fails properly to take into account the focus of the judge's finding in relation to the interests of justice. The judge's emphasis was on the prospect of a court trying to make a finding on a matter as important as parentage (and therefore the identity of the Respondent) on incomplete oral and written evidence.

The inherent jurisdiction is plainly a valuable asset, mending holes in the legal fabric that would otherwise leave individuals bereft of a necessary remedy. The present case (DNA testing) might be said to fall between the above examples of the court's inherent powers (protection of the vulnerable, striking out).

All we need say is that the children's guardian is on any view pivotal to the whole scheme. As any judge who has ever sat in care cases will be all too aware, the court is at every stage of the process critically dependent upon the guardian.

First, the still inveterate use of orders in the form of declaratory relief might be thought to be in significant part both anachronistic and inappropriate. Even before the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was brought into force, that view of the inherent jurisdiction had been shown to be unduly narrow: see St Helens Borough Council v PE [2006] EWHC 3460 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 1115.