DNA test contradicts couple’s sworn claims about child's paternity, judge says

A DNA test has established that an Indian man resisting deportation from Ireland on grounds of being the father of a child born to an EU citizen from Romania is not the child's father, a High Court judge has said.

The DNA test results contradict repeated sworn assertions by the man and woman that he is the father of the two-year-old boy, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said.

The child’s Romanian birth certificate, which inaccurately names the man as his father, was procured by fraud and requires correction, he added.

He urged the child’s mother to “come clean” at this stage, saying she had not set out any reason why stating accurate paternity details now would not be possible or appropriate.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises a child’s right to know their parents, implying a right to accurate information, he said. Those inherent rights of the child, which find legal expression in the Civil Registration Act 2004, were infringed by falsification of the paternity details here.

Immigration fraud “is not a victimless crime” and this case was “a particularly vivid example” of that.

The man and woman claimed to have separately come here in 2015, to have met and started a relationship here in 2017 and that the man is the father of the boy, born in early 2019.

Arrested

The man, who came here from the UK illegally, was arrested in 2019 on foot of a 2016 deportation order and remains on bail pending the end of the legal proceedings.

The judge last summer partially dismissed a range of claims advanced by the couple in proceedings by them and the child opposing the man’s deportation.

However, he granted an injunction restraining deportation to allow them obtain a paternity test on foot of which, if positive, various arguments concerning the rights of the child and the family might be pursued. When granting the injunction, he noted the Minister for Justice did not accept the man is the child’s father, “implying the whole thing is a scam”.

The State appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA) against aspects of his judgment, and judgment from the COA is awaited on that appeal.

In a further judgment published this week concerning how the case should proceed in light of the DNA test results, Mr Justice Humphreys said the false evidence from the applicants concerning the child’s paternity cast doubt on the credibility of all their claims.

Lawyers for the applicants had said they were instructed their clients were “surprised and disappointed” at the DNA test result, their previous instructions were given in good faith and they are still living together as a couple, he noted.

Contradiction

One could not accept the previous instructions were given in good faith in the absence of any attempt whatsoever to explain the contradiction between the instructions and the DNA results, he said. None of this was in any way a reflection on the applicants’ lawyers “who have done everything right”, he stressed.

The adult applicants have repeatedly lied from the start and those lies fundamentally compromised their credibility on all matters, including about their whereabouts; whether the woman was actually exercising EU Treaty rights at all material times, or at all; and about their denial their proposed marriage is one of convenience.

He ruled the injunction restraining deportation automatically ended as a result of the negative DNA test and set aside all orders and findings previously made in favour of the applicants.

He formally found as a fact the man is not the child’s father and noted the Minister will inform the registrar of births to request the child’s birth certificate be corrected to reflect that.

He ordered the applicants to pay all costs of the respondents on a solicitor and client basis, the highest level of legal costs.

He further directed that the man remains on bail pending final determination of the proceedings.