YZ (Declaration of Parentage: BATUK: DNA Evidence), Re [2026] EWHC 1601 (Fam)
[2026] EWHC 1601 (Fam)Case No FD25F00054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 26 June 2026
Before
MR JUSTICE POOLE
Between
RSApplicantUVWRespondentRe YZ (Declaration of Parentage: BATUK: DNA Evidence)RespondentMavis Amonoo-Acquah (instructed by The International Family Law Group LLP) for ApplicantThe Respondent in person for in personHearing Hearing date: 5 June 2026Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 26 June 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.Mr Justice Poole :Introduction
[1]In December 2024 the applicant’s solicitor, James Netto, Professor Denise Syndercombe-Court, Professor of Forensic Genetics at King’s College London, (“KCL”) Kelvin Kubai, a Kenyan advocate, Andrew McLeod, visiting Professor at KCL, and a team from the BBC, travelled to the town of Nanyuki in Kenya for the purpose of seeking to establish the paternity of certain children in that area. In particular, each of a number of mothers had claimed that the biological fathers of their children were British servicemen from the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (“BATUK”). The applicant, RS, was one such mother. Her child, a boy anonymised herein as YZ, was born in March 2019. She claims that the respondent, UVW is his father and seeks a declaration of parentage accordingly.[2]The applicant met the team visiting Kenya and presented YZ for the taking of samples for possible DNA testing. Professor Syndercombe-Court undertook the process of obtaining the samples. She verified the identity of RS and YZ, took saliva samples from YZ, sealed them in packages designed to preserve the samples for the flight back to the UK, giving each sample a unique identifying number. One sample was used to cross-reference against the Ancestry.com data base, which is a publicly available data base of users’ DNA. A second sample was later stored at KCL for the purpose of conducting a confirmatory DNA test in due course were a sample of the putative father obtained. Samples from approximately twenty children were taken in that initial cohort of cases.[3]The process of matching samples with the data base led to the identification of UVW as YZ’s putative father. RS applied for a declaration of parentage under the Family Law Act 1986 s55A, the application being issued on 26 June 2025. RS filed a statement dated 17 June 2025 stating that she had met UVW in 2013 when he was a soldier in the British Army stationed at Nanyuki with BATUK. They formed a relationship and he would come to visit her for two to three weeks at a time whenever he was in Kenya. He is ethnically Kenyan although residing in the UK and had family in Kenya whom he would visit. She stated that she fell pregnant with his child in 2018 but then found that UVW was in a long-term relationship in England. She spoke to the woman who was his partner here and that woman then ended her relationship with UVW who in turn ended his relationship with RS prior to YZ’s birth. RS gave the registrar of births and deaths UVW’s name (using the first two of his three names) as YZ’s father and the birth certificate bears his name as father accordingly. RS stated that her later approaches to the British Army in Kenya to assist her to connect with UVW had effectively been brushed aside.[4]UVW responded to the application by denying that he is YZ’s father, a denial he has maintained.[5]On 3 October 2025, Sir Andrew McFarlane P gave directions for DNA testing to ascertain whether UVW was or was not excluded from being YZ’s father. He found on a preliminary basis that the court had jurisdiction on alternative grounds that the respondent was domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application and/or was habitually resident in England and Wales for a period of one year ending on the date of the application. Prior to DNA testing, UVW filed an undated statement stating that he had left the army. He denied having had a relationship with RS.[6]On 23 February 2026 the matter came back before the then President who recorded that DNA testing had been performed. Professor Syndercombe-Court provided a report to the court which confirms that a sample was taken from UVW at KCL on 18 December 2025 and that, after an assessment of the genetic tests results from both his and YZ’s samples, the results are over 1 billion times more likely to be seen if UVW is YZ’s father than if an unrelated East African heritage man is the father. The figure corresponds to a relative chance of paternity of over 99.9999999%.[7]The only possible theoretical confounding factor, the involvement of a brother of UVW, does not apply in this case.[8]UVW appeared before Sir Andrew McFarlane on 24 March 2026 when he informed the court that (as recorded on the face of the order) “he did not know the applicant, was not, at any point, in a relationship with her, and had not had sexual intercourse with her.” He contended that: 8.1. He was not satisfied that the sample tested that confirms paternity is, in fact, a sample of his DNA; 8.2. He questions the names provided on the child’s birth certificate and how the applicant was able to obtain this document; 8.3. He queries how the sample was collected from the child in Kenya; 8.4. He queried the breakdown of the ethnicity of ancestry.com.[9]The respondent subsequently filed a “presentation” comprising a series of images of sampling equipment and screenshots of documents but with no accompanying narrative. He explained the relevance of this material in his oral evidence and submissions at the hearing before me on 5 June 2026. He has not had the benefit of representation, but he is clearly a man of intelligence who was very able to articulate his case. I gave him full opportunity to put that case even though most of it had not been set out in any witness statement.[10]The applicant responded to UVW’s denial of ever having met her, by filing and serving a second statement, dated 19 May 2026, exhibiting to it a photograph of the parties sitting together enjoying a drink at a casino.[11]I understand this to be the first of the several applications that Mr Netto’s team’s visit to Nanyuki generated, to result in a contested hearing. Several other applications have been concluded by consent, some others await determination.
The Law
[12]The Family Law Act 1986 s 55A gives the court the jurisdiction to determine applications for declarations of parentage:(1) 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.(2) 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.(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.(5) 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.(6) Where a court refuses to hear an application under subsection (1) above it may order that the applicant may not apply again for the same declaration without leave of the court.(7) 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.[13]The burden of proof of paternity lies on the applicant and the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, applies.[14]I remind myself, in accordance with the well known Lucas direction, that parties and witnesses may lie to the court or outside court for many reasons, including embarrassment or shame, and that the fact that a person has lied about one matter does not mean that they have lied about other matters. If I find that one of the parties has misled the court, I should consider why they have done so.[15]There is no dispute in this case that the court has jurisdiction on the basis of the respondent’s domicile on the date of the application and/or habitual residence in the year ending with that date.[16]The respondent does not contend that it would not be in the child’s best interests to hear the application. In closing submissions, he contended that public policy required the court to refuse to make the declaration because the court should not condone the applicant misleading the court.[17]The main issue before me is whether or not the respondent is in fact YZ’s biological father. If he is, then the declaration should be made subject to any public policy exception. If he is not, then it cannot be made.
The Evidence
[18]Professor Syndercombe-Court gave oral evidence of the procedures followed when collecting samples from YZ in Kenya, storing those, taking samples from UVW at KCL, and analysing the DNA evidence obtained. She has considerable expertise and experience in the field of DNA testing. She answered the respondent’s questioning directly and fairly.[19]The respondent sought to scrutinise the taking of samples from YZ in Kenya, but Professor Syndercombe-Court’s evidence was entirely persuasive that proper procedures were devised and adopted to ensure a secure chain of evidence. RS presented her identity card and YZ’s birth certificate. She filled out a consent form consenting to samples being taken from her child. The samples were taken and sealed in tamper-evident bags. A unique bar code and a unique serial number were ascribed to the samples.[20]Likewise, the respondent questioned whether an error could have been made when taking or labelling a sample from him on 18 December 2025. The Professor’s evidence was that another person took the sample but that the system was followed as usual. This involved verifying his identity, obtaining his signed consent, applying a barcode sticker to the sample once collected and ascribing it a unique serial number for KCL’s own records. The sample is then taken up one floor to the laboratory for analysis.[21]The burden of proof of paternity lies on the applicant not on the respondent, but Professor Syndercombe-Court’s expert evidence that there is a 99.9999999% probability that UVW is YZ’s biological father would be daunting for most respondents seeking to avoid a finding of paternity. Not so for UVW. He sought to challenge Professor Syndercombe-Court’s evidence and urged the court not to rely on her conclusion. His main points were: 21.1. There was an error in dating the sample taken from him. Other errors could have occurred in the chain of evidence. 21.2. The sample taken from him was labelled with someone else’s name. 21.3. The sample taken at KCL could have been from a different man.[22]Professor Syndercombe-Court frankly admitted that when writing up her report she had mistakenly written that the date when UVW gave his sample was 17 December 2025. The evidence before me shows that(i) he attended KCL, gave his consent and provided a sample on 18 December 2025;(ii) Professor Syndercombe-Court made a simple error when preparing her report on the samples;(iii) she corrected the date in handwriting on the report and initialled the corrections;(iv) the corrected report was re-typed. The error by the Professor, unfortunate though it was in the context of this case, was effectively a typing error of no consequence. I am quite satisfied that her evidence about material matters affecting the chain of evidence was entirely reliable.[23]RS gave oral evidence remotely from Kenya and UVW gave evidence remotely from England, as had previously been permitted. RS’s oral evidence coincided with her written evidence save that she said that she had first met the respondent in person in 2016, having “met” him on social media in 2013. She also accepted a typing error in her statement where she refers at one point to “our daughter” rather than “our son”. She told the court that she and the respondent had had sex on more than one occasion and did not use contraception. She could not give the exact date on which she discovered she was pregnant, but it was in July 2018.[24]The respondent questioned the applicant about how she named him on the birth certificate when, under Kenyan law, he should have been present at registration to consent to being so named. It may be that the letter of the law was not followed, but the question before this court is YZ’s paternity not whether RS or the registrar in Kenya complied with the law regarding registration. The naming of the respondent as father on the certificate does not prove that he is the father, but it does tend to show that RS believed he was the father before any DNA testing was performed. UVW asked RS why she had not used his full name on the certificate, but she said that she used the names that she knew him by.[25]Having told Sir Andrew McFarlane that he had never met the applicant, upon being presented with a photograph of him and the applicant enjoying a drink together, the respondent told me under affirmation that he had met the applicant just once, on the occasion when the photograph had been taken. He also accepted that he had been stationed at BATUK in June 2018 and until 14 July 2018 (which is the period in which YZ was probably conceived) but he denied ever having had sex with the applicant. He was adamant that YZ was not his child.
Analysis and Conclusion
[26]The cross-referencing of a sample from YZ with the Ancestry.com data base was not relied upon to prove paternity; it was only a gateway process to use DNA to seek to identify a putative father. Rather, the applicant relies on the DNA testing of the samples from YZ and UVW, as well as her own evidence as to her relationship with UVW in Kenya.[27]The respondent’s case that his DNA sample may have been mis-labelled or otherwise confused with a sample given by someone else, was without any merit. He has three names, UVW. A photograph was taken at KCL on 18 December 2025 showing a label on a round plastic container on which one can see the names UV but not W. The label curls out of view so the name W might have been written on the underside of the label out of view on the photograph. The unique serial number is on this label. On another label, which shows the unique bar code, his first and third names have been written: UW. On this evidence, the respondent ambitiously argued that his sample had been confused with those of another man.[28]One of the labels may well have had his three names on it but with one name which was simply out of view of the camera. But even if that were not the case, and only two of his names were written on the labels, and a different combination used for each label, it is of no consequence. He accepts that he was at KCL on 18 December 2025 and gave a sample. He identified himself and gave written consent. The labels contained, respectively, a unique bar code and a unique serial number. He himself took a photograph. The chain of evidence is secure and its security has been beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the hypothesis that on the same day that the respondent attended KCL to give a DNA sample, his sample was inadvertently exchanged with a sample from another man also attending KCL who not only shared (at least) two of his three names but also happened to be the biological father of YZ, has no credibility. The request for the respondent to attend to give a sample arose in the proceedings in which he was the only respondent. There was no queue of YZ’s putative fathers at KCL on 18 December 2025, all having the same or similar names, all of whom had been in Kenya at the time of YZ’s conception, and all giving DNA samples at the same time.[29]Although the applicant’s statements and oral evidence could have contained more detail, and although she corrected her statement about her first face to face meeting with the respondent, the applicant was entirely credible in her account that she had a sexual relationship with the respondent in Kenya. She gave compelling evidence that they continued to have sex when they met up in Kenya including in or about June to early July 2018 when YZ was probably conceived, and that she found that she was pregnant in the latter month. UVW accepted that he was stationed at BATUK during that period. RS had put the respondent’s name on YZ’s birth certificate honestly believing him to be the father. The respondent complained that she had not used his full name when registering the birth, but RS reasonably said that she put down the names she knew. In the subsequent seven years she has gained nothing from doing so. It is not clear why, if the respondent’s account were true, she would give the registrar the name of a virtual stranger whom she had met only once and with whom she had never had sex, as her child’s father.[30]In contrast, UVW changed his account as the other evidence changed. He had told Sir Andrew McFarlane that he had never met the applicant. Later, presented with a photograph of him and RS sitting together enjoying a drink, he told me that he had only met her on that one occasion. He was forced to change his account but only admitted what he felt he had to admit. He was not prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the court about his relationship with RS. I am satisfied that he knowingly misled the court on 24 March 2026 and that he continued to mislead the court in his oral evidence at the hearing before me. I am satisfied that he misled the court about his relationship with RS in order to conceal the possibility that he could be YZ’s father. He also sought to prove that he had not been in Kenya when YZ was conceived but ultimately, had to accept that he had been in the country at the time when, I find, it is likely that conception occurred.[31]I accept RS’s evidence as credible and I do not find that RS misled the court, which was the finding UVW invited me to make in order to refuse the application on public policy grounds. I can discern no other reason why it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to make the declaration (see the Family Law Act 1986 s58(1) and the recent judgment of Sir Andrew McFarlane P in Re N (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam)).[32]The respondent was entitled to a fair hearing and to scrutinise evidence about the collecting and storage of samples but there is a gulf between engaging in reasonable scrutiny and putting forward a case about the DNA sampling that was fanciful. I regret to conclude that the respondent wasted court time and doubtless caused avoidable anxiety to the applicant by putting forward a wholly unmeritorious case that his sample was not the sample used for the purpose of Professor Syndercombe-Court’s report, but rather that YZ’s actual father, who happened to share at least two of the respondent’s three names, also coincidentally turned up at KCL on 18 December 2025 to give a DNA sample and that their samples were inadvertently exchanged during the sampling or testing process. The respondent is an intelligent man I struggle to accept that he honestly believed this was a possibility.[33]In his closing submissions, the respondent sought to persuade the court that DNA testing should be re-done but I find no basis on which so to order. There is no need to delay the conclusion of this application and further delay would be detrimental to the applicant and the child. The respondent’s attempts to undermine the expert DNA evidence have failed. The evidence is reliable. The other evidence is consistent with a finding that UVW is YZ’s biological father, but the DNA evidence puts that beyond any doubt. I conclude without hesitation that UVW is YZ’s father. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the declaration of parentage should be made accordingly.[34]This is but one of the cases generated by the efforts of Mr Netto and others to assist women and children in Kenya who may not otherwise have had the opportunity to prove paternity. This respondent has denied paternity but has been proved to be YZ’s father. It is not for me to comment on the other cases, but in this case the applicant has been very well served by those representing her, the expert evidence, and by all those who have worked on her behalf.