The Family Law Act 1986, section 55A
(2) provides:“A court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application under subsection (1) above if, and only if, either of the persons named in it for the purposes of that subsection –(a) is domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application, or(b) has been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with that date, or(c) died before that date and either –(i) was at death domiciled in England and Wales, or(ii) had been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with the date of death.”34.I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to entertain the application. Amy is domiciled in England and Wales and was on 26 May 2022 habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with 26 May 2022.35.I also note incidentally that Errol was domiciled in England and Wales at the time of his death 36.Section 55A(3) and (4) provide:“(3)Except in a case falling within subsection (4) below, the court shall refuse to hear an application under subsection (1) above unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application (but this is subject to section 27 of the Child Support Act 1991).(4)The excepted cases are where the declaration sought is as to whether or not:(a) the applicant is the parent of a named person;(b) a named person is the parent of the applicant; or(c) a named person is the other parent of a named child of the applicant.”37.This is an “excepted case” pursuant to sub-section (4)(b) because Amy seeks a declaration that Errol was her father. Therefore, Amy does not need to show that she has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application, although I am, in fact, completely satisfied that she does have a sufficient personal interest in it.38.As no children are involved in this application, sub-section (5) is not relevant.39.As the court has not refused to hear this application under subsection (1), subsection (6) is also irrelevant. 40.Section 58 of the Family Law Act 1986 contains general provisions as to the making and effect of declarations. Sub-section (1) provides:“Where on an application to a court for a declaration under this Part the truth of the proposition to be declared is proved to the satisfaction of the court, the court shall make that declaration unless to do so would manifestly be contrary to public policy.”41.My reading of this provision is that I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (the ordinary civil standard) on the evidence before me that Errol was Amy’s father and if I am so satisfied, then I am required to make a declaration to that effect unless to do so would be manifestly contrary to public policy. The court has no discretion to withhold the declaration once the facts are proved subject to the question of public policy.42.I turn to now consider whether the facts are proved. 43.Ashley and Darren Lee Johnson (“Darren”) are Errol’s biological children. In July 2022, Ashley, Darren and Amy were genetically tested by King’s College London. On 27 July 2022 Dr Denise Syndercombe Court reported as follows:“You have asked us to consider the genetic evidence that Amy Boudewijn is related to Darren Lee Johnson and Ashley Paul Johnson, who are full siblings, as a half sibling. Please note that it is not possible to differentiate, genetically, between an uncle/niece, grandparent/grandchild or half-sibling relationship and so any comments made about the strength of a relationship apply to all of these. Considering the genetic results, the most likely relationship is that Amy Boudewijn is a half sibling of the other two, that being more than 1600 times more likely than them being unrelated. In my opinion this offers strong evidence, relative to the claim, that Amy Boudewijn, Darren Lee Johnson and Ashley Paul Johnson are closely related, with Amy Boudewijn being a half sibling or a genetically equivalent relationship. This opinion is based on a statistical assessment using an African Caribbean population to evaluate the results. that it is likely that Amy is their half-sibling, in fact 1600 times more likely than them being unrelated. This was confirmed by on a statistical assessment using an African-Caribbean population to evaluate the results. ”44.The stated degree of likelihood of Amy being a half-sibling of Ashley and Darren (and that therefore Errol was her father) corresponds to a probability of 99.9375%. This evidence alone completely satisfies me that it is far more likely than not that Errol was Amy’s father. Indeed on the basis of this evidence I would say that I am sure that Errol was Amy’s father. 45.Had this scientific evidence not been available I can say that the remaining evidence adduced by Amy satisfies me on the balance of probability that Errol was Amy’s father. 46.I say this to make clear for the benefit of any future case that there is no requirement that scientific testing must be undertaken on an application for a declaration of parentage. 47.Finally, I do not consider that there is any reason as to why the making of the declaration sought would be manifestly contrary to public policy. 48.I am therefore satisfied that I can and should make the declaration sought, namely that Errol was Amy’s father. 49.Section 55A(7) of the Family Law Act 1986 provides:“Where a declaration is made by a court on an application under subsection (1) above, the prescribed officer of the court shall notify the Registrar General, in such a manner and within such period as may be prescribed, of the making of that declaration.” 50.Amy seeks the amendment of her birth certificate, which I cannot directly do. However, in accordance with the provision stated above, a court officer will send a copy of the order arising from this hearing to the Registrar General for Births and Deaths within 21 days of the date of the order so that he may consider the re-registration of the birth of Amy under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, section 14A. 51.In the light of my declaration it should follow that the Registrar General for Births and Deaths will amend Amy’s birth certificate to name Errol as her father. 52.Set out below is the order which I have made, redacted to obscure the addresses of Amy, Denise, Pieter and Bridget. Those addresses shall not be given in any report of these proceedings or this judgment. ________________________ In the Family Court No: PO22P70194Sitting at the Royal Courts of JusticeThe Family Law Act 1986, section 55AAfter consideration of the documents filed by the applicant.After hearing the applicant in person and the second respondent in person. After no attendance by the first respondent.