Judge dismisses application for declaration of non-parentage 

The Family Court has dismissed a man’s application for a declaration of non-parentage of a young boy, on whose birth certificate he appears as the father, finding it would not be in the child’s best interests for the application to proceed.

In A Child (Application for a declaration of non-parentage post adoption), Re [2025], His Honour Judge Burrows, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, concluded there was “no real evidence” that the applicant is not the child’s biological father, and shared concern over the risk of disruption to the child's life, who had already been adopted.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge said the applicant, “TT”, and the mother were involved in a relationship at the time of the child's birth and conception.

He added: “However, after a long period of time, TT now strongly believes he is not the child's biological father and wants the court to make a declaration to that effect.”

In September 2021, the child was made the subject of both a care and a placement order. Subsequently, in April 2022, the child was adopted.

It was not until early summer 2024 that TT brought the present application.

The judge said: “There is no real explanation for this delay, although he [TT] was in prison [for a 14-month period] as a result of coercive and controlling behaviour and sexual offences against the mother. TT claims that he raised the issue with those representing him during the care proceedings. However, […] paternity was not an issue during the care proceedings.”

The judge set out three issues raised by TT in his application as follows:

“[TT] is convinced that mother was unfaithful to him at around the time the child was conceived. He says she was in contact with other men at the time of conception, and by that I assume he must mean she was having sexual relations with another man or men at that time. Secondly, he is also convinced that he is either incapable of fathering children, or at least he is less able to father children than at least one other man with whom mother was involved at the time. He makes reference to having only one testicle and how, despite having unprotected sex with other women, none of them have ever become pregnant.”

He added: “Consequently, the evidential basis for TT's application is one of suspicion and circumstantial factors. If the matter were to proceed, the court would have to order a DNA test. That would definitively establish TT's parenthood, or otherwise.”

Considering the relevant legal principles, His Honour Judge Burrows said: “The court does have jurisdiction to determine an application for a declaration of parentage under s. 55A(1) even where a lawful adoption order has been made, as here: see H v An Adoption Agency (Declaration of Parentage Following Adoption) [2020] per Mr Justice MacDonald.

“Furthermore, in the same case, the Judge considered s. 55A(5), which provides:

"Where an application under subsection (1) above is made and one of the persons named in it for the purposes of that subsection is a child, the court may refuse to hear the application if it considers that the determination of the application would not be in the best interests of the child."

“It is important to notice the language used here. The Court does not have to consider whether proceeding with the application is positively in the child's best interests, but rather whether to proceed with it would not be in the child's best interest.”

TT submitted that the child has a right to know who his father is, or, rather, who he is not, and he has a right to know it now. Otherwise, he would grow up receiving regular correspondence from TT (at birthdays) and not realise that TT is not his father. It was submitted that would not be in his best interests.

However, the adoption agency argued there was “no good reason” for the application to proceed. It submitted it would disrupt the adoptive placement - “potentially subverting it by revealing who and where the child is”.

Discussing the case, HHJ Burrows said: “I have to decide whether it is not in the child's best interests for the application to proceed. There is a subtle difference in the language used here in comparison with a situation in which I have to decide whether it is in the child's best interests for the application to proceed.

“I interpret the requirement in the case to be less onerous for the applicant; namely, not whether it is positively good for the child for it to proceed, but rather whether it would be positively bad for the child for it to proceed?”

He continued: “I have to weigh up the benefits for the child to know who his father is, or is not. That is important for his sense of identity. Having considered the matter, it seems to me that is the only benefit for this child for the proceedings to continue. TT plays no active role in his life, apart from letterbox contact. TT no longer has parental responsibility for him, that having been extinguished by the adoption order.

“On the other hand, for the application to proceed would carry with it a risk of disruption to the child's life, not least because there would have to be a swab test taken from him.

“In addition, and frankly much more seriously, there is [a] risk that the declaration that would follow [could affect] the integrity of the adoption process. It is a very small risk, perhaps, but the consequences should it crystallise would be disastrous for the child.”

The judge went on to observe there is “no real evidence” that TT is not the child's biological father.

He said: “The reason TT considers that he may not be the father is a combination of jealousy and mistrust of the mother on the one hand, and his own sense of reproductive inadequacy on the other.

“When balancing all these factors, I have decided that it is not in the child's best interests for this application to proceed.”

Dismissing the application for a declaration of non-parentage, His Honour Judge Burrows finally added: “In relation to the adoptive parents, […] they are now aware of the claim TT makes about paternity. They will no doubt be able to guide the child through this issue as and when it arises. It may be that when he is older, the child will want to know about this subject. Then he will be supported by his parents and professional adoption services who can guide him through what may be an emotionally challenging experience.

“In other words, TT's parentage may become an issue for the child one day. When it does, he can be assisted with the implications for his own sense of identity. However, that time has not yet arrived. If and when it does arrive, it will be the child that is in control, and no one else.”

Lottie Winson