The respondents to this application
5.FPR rule 8.20(1) stipulates who shall be the respondents to this application. They are:i)the person whose parentage is in issue except where that person is a child; andii)any person who is or is alleged to be the parent of the person whose parentage is in issue, except where that person is the applicant or is a child. 6.As regards (i) the person whose parentage is in issue is Ruth. Clearly she cannot be both applicant and respondent. 7.As regards (ii) the reference to “a person” is to a person alive or dead. This is clear from the terms of s. 55A(1) which provide:‘Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person may apply to the High Court or the family court for a declaration as to whether or not a person named in the application is or was the parent of another person so named.’8.The reference to a “person named in the application” in sub-section (1) includes a person who is dead. This is demonstrated by the terms of sub-section (2)(c) which prescribes the jurisdictional requirements where “a person named in the application” is deceased.9.Therefore, Constance and Patrick were rightly made respondents. To be completely correct, the second respondent should have been a representative of Patrick’s estate.10.FPR rules 8.20(2) – (6) provide:‘(2) The applicant must include in his application particulars of every person whose interest may be affected by the proceedings and his relationship to the applicant.(3) The acknowledgment of service filed under rule 19.5 must give details of any other persons the respondent considers should be made a party to the application or be given notice of the application.(4) Upon receipt of the acknowledgment of service, the court must give directions as to any other persons who should be made a respondent to the application or be given notice of the proceedings.(5) A person given notice of proceedings under paragraph (4) may, within 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served, apply to be joined as a party.(6) No directions may be given as to the future management of the case under rule 19.9 until the expiry of the notice period in paragraph (5).’11.The court has not received an acknowledgement of service by Constance or by the representative of Patrick’s estate. Neither has filed one because neither has been formally served. Therefore, no other person has been identified under rule 8.20(3).12.On 25 October 2022 Judd J held a case management hearing. She heard Ruth, Constance and Jane (Patrick’s daughter). Her order did not direct that any other person should be made a respondent pursuant to rule 8.20(4). It provided only for the filing of evidence and for the matter to be set down for final hearing, in the following terms:‘1. The applicant shall, by 4pm on 18th November 2021, file and serve statement(s) setting out (and, if appropriate, annexing) the evidence she relies upon in support of her application for a declaration of parentage with respect to Patrick Aylward, deceased. 2. The Respondent shall [file] any evidence in response by 4pm on 9.12.21. 3. The matter shall be listed for further hearing on 24 January 2021; time estimate 2 hours.’The reference to ‘the Respondent’ in the singular suggests that Judd J regarded Constance as being the only person who should be a respondent to the application, although, for the reasons given below, I doubt that any consideration was given as to whether Patrick should be a respondent or Dennis given notice of the proceedings.13.I have seen a copy of Patrick’s will. His widow Barbara was his sole Executrix. There is no doubt that the terms of the will have been fully executed. 14.I have received evidence that Barbara is supportive of the application. I was told this by Simon Aylward (“Simon”), and Jane Aylward (“Jane”), the children of Patrick and Barbara. They too are fully supportive of the application. I accept that evidence. Therefore, the failure formally to serve Barbara with the application is of no consequence. I record that at the hearing I made an order waiving the service requirement on Barbara.15.Ruth named Dennis in her application as a ‘person who is acknowledged to be the parent of the person whose parentage is in question.’16.In my opinion, consideration should have been given at the case management directions hearing to giving a representative of Dennis’s estate notice of the application pursuant to rule 8.20(4). Had such notice been given, the representative would then have the right to apply to be made a party to the application. However, it is obvious that Ruth did not draw the attention of the court to rule 8.20(4); I surmise that she was unaware of its existence.17.I have not seen a copy of Dennis’s will; I do not know if he even made one. I have been given no information as to who acted as executors of his will, or, if he died intestate, who were his personal representatives. I have been given no information as to who might be regarded as being a suitable representative of his estate. Neither Ruth or Constance had anything to do with Dennis or his family after the divorce. Ruth stated in a clarifying email to my clerk:‘My mother Constance and I have had no contact with Dennis or any of his family/children for over 35 years for reasons I outlined in my testimony to Judge Mostyn. I am aware that Dennis did have other children and I believe they resided in either the Portsmouth or South London area, but I have no other information I can offer the court.’18.In my judgment identifying and notifying such a representative would be a protracted process and a pointless exercise. There is no reason to think that any such representative would object to this application, or even be slightly interested in it. Dennis was well aware that he was not the true father of Ruth and it is idle to think that anyone on his behalf now would argue otherwise. 19.In my judgment on the specific facts of this case there are good reasons to waive the obligation imposed on the court to consider who should be given formal notice of the proceedings. I do not consider that in so doing I am compromising Dennis’s procedural rights in any meaningful way.