Right to reopen paternity case

Case no. BS-23819/2024-HJR and no. BS-24000/2024-HJR
Order made on 8 October 2024

M 
and
F2 
vs.
F1

In the summer of 2019, M gave birth to child B. Prior to the birth, the Agency of Family Law had received a declaration of joint care and responsibility on paternity from M and her partner at the time, F1. Based on that declaration, F1 was registered as the father of B.

In December 2019, M and F1 ceased to live together. In March 2020, M submitted the first request to the Agency of Family Law to reopen the paternity case regarding B, who was around eight months old at that time. According to M, a person other than F1 could be B’s genetic father. On the same day, M sent a message to F2, informing him that he could potentially be the father of B. 

In the spring of 2022, M and F2 had a DNA test performed by the company DNAtest.dk. According to the conclusion of their report, the probability that F2 was B’s genetic father was greater than 99.99%. 

F2 then requested that the paternity case be reopened in May 2022, and M did the same in June 2022. The Agency of Family Law rejected both requests, and F2 and M both appealed these decisions to the Family Court.

By decision of 9 March 2023, the Family Court granted M’s request to reopen the paternity case. At the same time, the Family Court refused F2’s request for reopening.

F1 appealed the Family Court’s refusal to reopen the paternity case to the High Court, which joined F2 as a party to the case. By order of 19 January 2024, the High Court refused to reopen the paternity case. The parties appealed against this order to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the DNA report produced by M, which named F2 as the genetic father of M, constituted new information in the case, which could lead to a different outcome of the paternity case if it were reopened. However, the DNA report could not in itself lead to reopening of the paternity case, which required an overall assessment of, among other things, the consideration that F2 as the genetic father should be registered as B’s father against the consideration of serving B’s interest in stability.

With regard to the overall assessment, the Supreme Court noted that, according to the DNA report, F2 was M’s genetic father. B had had contact with F2 since 2022, and F2 had treated B as his own child, just as M had allowed F2 to treat B as his own child.

Based on the declaration of joint care and responsibility on paternity from F1 and M, F1 was registered as B’s father when B was born in the summer of 2019. F1 lived with M and B after the birth and until December 2019, when the parties ceased to live together. Since then, F1 had had contact with B, and F1 had continued to treat B as his own child even after he learnt that F2 was B’s genetic father according to the DNA report. B had thus always had a relationship with F1. In addition, M had allowed F1 to treat B as his own child, at least until B was about eight months old. 

Against this background and based on an overall assessment of the case, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the paternity case should not be reopened. The Supreme Court attached decisive importance to what was presumed to be in B’s best interest, including his ability to maintain his relationship with F1.