Proving fatherhood is only first hurdle

By Frances Gibb - Times

DAVID BLUNKETT will have no difficulty seeking a court order to establish the paternity of Kimberly Quinn’s children.

But, even if he obtains scientific verification that he is their father, establishing regular contact with the children could be a much higher hurdle to surmount if a couple fails to agree arrangements amicably.

As many fathers have discovered, mothers can deny contact, even when a court order is in place; and courts have limited sanctions at their disposal — short of jailing mothers — to enforce the orders.

Less problematic is establishing fatherhood in the first place. The advent of DNA testing coupled with the legal duty on fathers to pay for their children under the Child Support Act has led to a boom in paternity testing. 

In the past this was done through blood samples, but scientific advances have enabled tests to be done more easily, through the use of a few hair follicles or a mouth swab.

As a result, paternity testing kits became available to the public, which advise people on how to collect samples and send them off for analysis.

Although samples from the putative father and the child are always required, it is no longer necessary for the mother to provide a sample — making it possible to test without the mother’s consent.

The Department of Health says that there should be consent where a paternity test is done; the British Medical Association says that “ethically, ‘motherless’ paternity testing should only go ahead where the mother, and, if sufficiently mature, the child, consents”. 

If one of the adults involved refuses to give consent, a court order can be obtained under the Family Law Reform Act 1969.