Re O; Re J (Children) (Blood Tests: Constraint)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 2000 |
| Date | 24 January 2000 |
| Court | Family Division |
FAMILY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Wall
Children - blood samples sought from child for paternity purposes - court cannot order
The court had no power under either section 21 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 or under its inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with an order requiring samples to be taken of a child's blood for the purposes of determining paternity.
Mr Justice Wall, sitting in the Family Division, so held in each of two cases when making a determination on what orders, if any, could be made where a male applicant, in proceedings instituted in the county court under the Children Act 1989, had obtained an order under section 20(1) of the 1969 Act that a sample of blood be taken from a child who was the subject of those proceedings for the purpose of establishing paternity and where the mother in each case had refused to consent to the child's blood being taken.
The cases were heard in chambers and judgment given in open court with leave to report preserving the anonymity of the children and the parties.
Miss Pamela Scriven, QC and Miss Sylvia Allen for the applicant in O; Miss Cliona Papazian for the mother; Miss Heather Hobson for the applicant in the J; the mother was neither present nor represented. Mr Peter Jackson as amicus curiae.
MR JUSTICE WALL said that a proper interpretation of sections 21(1) and (3) of the 1969 Act, read together as they should be read, led irresistibly to the conclusion that Parliament had empowered a parent with care and control of a child to refuse to permit a sample of blood to be taken for the purposes of determining paternity.
Furthermore, the clear consequence of the 1969 Act was that both the inherent jurisdiction to direct the taking of a child's blood for paternity purposes, as opposed to necessary medical treatment, and any consequential power to enforce that direction had been entirely over-ridden by that statutory scheme under Part III of the Act.
Before the decision in In re R (Blood test: Constraint)WLR ([1998] 2 WLR 796), in which care and control of a child was given to the Official Solicitor for the purpose of consent, the courts had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LG v DK
...[1994] 2 FLR 463, CA. L (paternity testing), Re[2009] EWCA Civ 1239, [2010] 2 FLR 188. O, Re, Re J (children) (blood tests: constraint)[2000] 1 FCR 330, [2000] 2 All ER 29, [2000] Fam 139, [2000] 2 WLR 1284, [2000] 1 FLR P, Re [2009] EWHC 163 (Ch), [2009] 2 All ER 1198, [2010] Ch 33, Ct of ......
-
Re H and A (Children)
...3 FCR 201, [1997] Fam 89, [1996] 4 All ER 28, [1996] 3 WLR 506, [1996] 2 FLR 65, CA. O, Re J (children) (blood tests: constraint), Re[2000] 1 FCR 330, [2000] Fam 139, [2000] 2 All ER 29, [2000] 2 WLR 1284, [2000] 1 FLR S v McC, W v W [1972] AC 24, [1970] 3 All ER 107, [1970] 3 WLR 366, CA. ......