![SD23P20230/SD15/25 - [2025] EWHC 2960 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
The Issues Before Me
The Issues Before Me
It is common ground between all the parties before me that it is in J’s life-long best interests to be adopted by Mr and Mrs J.
Before I make an adoption order in relation to J, I will need to consider whether, in light of the information now provided, the non-notification paternity direction made on 23 July 2025 needs to be revisited.
On 1 July 2025 I indicated that the court would need to make findings of fact, dependent on the evidence available, on those issues. The issues, in the context of a life changing and lifelong order for J were ‘all relevant to J and her origins and should be determined on the best evidence. As she grows and becomes curious, there will be issues of where did I come from; how did I come to live with my mummy and daddy, what happened. It seems to me these issues are intertwined… she must know in so far as this court can ascertain what her origins were and the circumstances around’ her conception.
To fulfil that purpose, I considered at the pre-trial review that the court needed to determine at the final hearing the following issues:
The circumstances of J’s conception and the applicants’ and first respondent’s
knowledge of it.
The circumstances resulting in the NorthGene DNA test concluding that there was a
greater than 99.999% probability that Mr P was J’s biological father.
The circumstances resulting in the NorthGene DNA report being provided to the guardian and court without the wording “Peace of Mind” and “This Report can NOT be used for legal purposes” included on page one (which were in the original report provided by NorthGene).
Whether all or any of the above involved an attempt by the (i) applicants, (ii) first respondent and/or (iii) paternal grandmother (in respect of (b) only), to mislead each other, or any other person.
Whether I considered that the court has been misled. The evidence in this case could, at its highest, lead the court to conclude that the applicants and/or the first respondent knowing she was pregnant by a third party, misled the court in applying for / supporting a Parental Order.
Whether a third-party sample was knowingly provided by the applicants and/or the paternal grandmother to mislead and obtain a Parental Order.
Whether DNA evidence for the purposes of court proceedings had been tampered with by the applicants or one of them to mislead and obtain a Parental Order.