Paternity testing in New Zealand

PO L I C Y PA P E R Family | October 2006 Paternity testing in New Zealand 1. INTRODUCTION Approximately seven percent of all children in New Zeala...
Author: Walter Brown
1 downloads 0 Views 113KB Size
PO L I C Y PA P E R

Family | October 2006

Paternity testing in New Zealand

1. INTRODUCTION Approximately seven percent of all children in New Zealand have no named father on their birth certificate1 and these children therefore lack crucial knowledge of their cultural, biological and social heritage. In many ways, they have an incomplete picture of who they are. Under our current law, if a man wants to find out whether he is the father of a child, he faces great difficulty if the mother is unwilling to have this determined. In one recent example a man sought a declaration of paternity which was resisted by the child’s mother. The mother then refused to comply with a recommendation by the High Court that she have her child’s DNA tested. The High Court then ordered the mother to have her son tested by way of a buccal swab, but she appealed against this decision. The case ended up in the Court of Appeal2 and the Court ordered that a DNA sample be carried out. This sample determined that the man was in fact the father of the child. Tragically though, by this stage the child was already four years old and both father and child had missed out on crucial years of relationship. This case highlights the difficulty for a man to find out whether he is the father of a child if the mother refuses to consent to her child having DNA tests. This Policy Paper sets out the principles that could guide changes to the laws on paternity testing, the law as it is now, some recent recommendations from the New Zealand Law Commission and policy recommendations to change the process surrounding paternity testing in New Zealand. 1.1. Guiding principles The guiding principles in considering the issue of paternity tests should include: •

The importance of a child knowing who their biological father is: It is vital that all children

know who both of their biological parents are and are provided with this opportunity. •

Consistent treatment of mothers and fathers: We consider that it is important that the law provides broadly consistent treatment to both mothers and fathers. Currently the law makes it very easy for a mother to insist that a father takes a paternity test to establish whether he is the father of a child (because the consequences of not doing so are significant) but very difficult for a father to insist that a mother consents to testing of a child to establish this same fact. We support a broadly consistent approach to the treatment of mothers and fathers which recognises that fathers are as important as mothers in a child’s life.



The importance of timeliness: It is important that a child knows who their biological father is, and that a father has the ability to have input into his child’s life, from the earliest possible age. Establishing paternity when a child is 3 or 4 years old makes it more difficult for a father to integrate himself into that child’s life and robs both father and child of a relationship in those formative years. Therefore, it is critical that any new process to establish paternity reduces delays as much as possible.



Cost: As with any legal proceeding or process, it will be important to keep the potential costs of establishing paternity as low as possible and distributed between the parties in an equitable way.

2. THE CURRENT LAW 2.1. Assumption of paternity A man will be presumed to be a child’s father if:

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand



He is the husband: He is the husband of the mother when the child was born, or was her husband ten months prior to the child being born;



His name is on the birth certificate: His name is on the birth certificate as the child’s father (both parties must have consented to this);



He signed a deed of acknowledgement of paternity: He has signed a deed of acknowledgement of paternity (both parties must have signed this); or



A court makes a declaration: A court declares he is the child’s father (under section 10 of the Status of Children Act 1969, or under section 47 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980).

In this policy paper, this group of men is referred to as “presumed presumed fathers”. fathers” Men who think they may be the father but do not fall within one of the categories above are referred to in this note as “prospective prospective fathers fathers”.



If the respondent refuses a DNA test, the court will rule without this evidence: The Court can “draw such inferences (if any) from the fact of refusal as appear to it to be proper in the circumstances” (section 57(2) Family Proceedings Act).



Court can make orders of paternity or of no paternity: The Court can make an order declaring that the respondent is the father of the child, or can make an order declaring that the respondent is not the father of the child.



If the respondent does not have a DNA test, the Court may still make a paternity order: The order will be based on the evidence available to it (the standard is that the Court must be “satisfied that the respondent is the father of the child” (section 51).



No order can be made against a man married to the mother: A paternity order can only be made against a male who is not married to the mother and was not married to the mother before the conception of the child (this person is already assumed to be the father) (section 47(2)).



The mother of the child does not need to give evidence for the making of a paternity order: (section 52).



Mother’s evidence does not require corroboration: If the mother does give evidence, no corroboration of her evidence is necessary (section 52).

2.2. Paternity Orders One way of establishing paternity is by applying to the Family Court for a paternity order under section 47 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (“Family Proceedings Act”). Points to note about paternity orders include: •

Only a mother can apply to the court for a paternity order: A “presumed father” cannot apply for a paternity order and neither can a “prospective father” (section 47(1)).



Court can recommend DNA tests: As part of a paternity order hearing, the Court can recommend that parentage (or DNA) tests are carried out on the child and any person who may be a natural parent of the child (“the respondent”) (section 54). Both the mother and the respondent can apply as part of the hearing for a court recommendation that DNA tests are carried out (section 54(1)(a) Family Proceedings Act).



The Court can not order a DNA test: The Court currently does not have the power to order that this test be carried out (although the Law Commission has suggested that they be given this power, see below).

| 2

2.3. Declarations of Paternity Another way of establishing paternity is by applying to the Family Court or the High Court for a declaration of paternity under section 10 of the Status of Children Act 1969 (“Status of Children Act”). Points to note about declarations of paternity: •

Fathers can apply: A prospective father can apply for a declaration of paternity, if he is a person “who alleges that the relationship of father and child exists between [him] … and another named person” (section 10(1)(b)).



Other people can apply: Other people, such as prospective grandparents of the child, can also

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

apply to the Court for a declaration of paternity. These people must wish “to have it determined whether the relationship of father and child exists between two named persons” and they must have “a proper interest in the result” (section 10(1)(c)). •

Standard of declaration: The Family Court or the High Court may make a declaration of paternity if “it is proved to the Court’s satisfaction that the relationship exists”. Obviously, a positive DNA test would easily satisfy this rather general test for establishing paternity (section 10(2)).



DNA tests can be recommended: In a hearing of an application for a declaration of paternity, the Court can, under section 54 of the Family Proceedings Act, recommend that DNA tests be carried out on the child and “any person who may be a natural parent of the child”.



Court cannot order DNA test: Once again, the Court can not make an order that this test be carried out (although the Law Commission has suggested that they be given this power, see below). If the child’s mother does not consent to the child having the test, it is very difficult to have the child tested.



Court can compel DNA testing eventually: A recent Court of Appeal decision confirmed that the court can order DNA testing on the application of a person claiming to be a natural parent when the sole guardian of the child (the other parent) refuses to consent to their child having a DNA test. 3



Court must rely on Guardianship Act 1968: The Court of Appeal did this by making the child a ward of the court by virtue of section 10D of the Guardianship Act 1968. Guardianship was be assigned to the court for a few hours while DNA samples were taken, so that the child’s guardian could give consent to the taking of DNA, then transferred back to the custodial parent.



Court used UNCROC and “best interests”: The Court of Appeal did not have clear precedent or clear legislation to guide them in this case and relied on the United Nations Convention on the

| 3

Rights of the Child (“UNCROC”) and the best interests of the child to have the child DNA tested. •

Process is lengthy and expensive: This method of determining paternity is time-consuming and expensive. The Court of Appeal case referred to above took more than four years to be determined. The process of transferring guardianship to the Court has also been criticised by former Law Commissioner Francis Joychild who stated that process was “convoluted” and “not really what the jurisdiction is for”.4

3. SUGGESTIONS OF THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission, in their report New Issues in Legal Parenthood, sets out two processes for DNA testing: “voluntary testing”, where the process does not begin in court and may not involve a court at all; and “court intervention” where DNA testing does originate in court and will require court involvement. These two processes are considered below and could be incorporated in your Bill. 3.1. DNA testing: “Voluntary Testing” This would occur where one parent would like DNA testing and the other parent refuses to allow the testing. This would occur before any application to the Court is made for a declaration of paternity or paternity order. The Law Commission refers to this as “voluntary DNA testing” as the process does not begin in court and may not involve the court at all. 3.1.1 Current situation in New Zealand is ambiguous The current situation in New Zealand is ambiguous. The Law Commission notes that the practice of DNA Diagnostics is to require the mother’s consent, or the consent of the guardian, along with proof of guardianship where that person is not the mother, before doing a DNA test on the child. It appears that DNA Diagnostics do not require the mother’s consent for “home sample tests” but these might not be admissible in a court hearing to determine paternity.5 There is, at this stage, no established law surrounding this process and the process relies on DNA Diagnostic’s internal guidelines.

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

3.1.2. Options for a legal scheme for voluntary testing. The Law Commission outlines three options for a legal scheme for voluntary testing and favours a scheme where one “parent consents on behalf of the child but that parent must inform the other parent”. The Law Commission notes that “this option would include a process to enable the informed parent to seek a court order to prevent the testing if he or she thought there were compelling reasons for doing so.”6



There are a number of points to consider about the proposed legal scheme for voluntary DNA testing: •

Inexpensive and efficient: The strength of the Law Commission’s proposal is that the parent who wants the DNA test does not need to initiate their request in Court. In fact, if no objection is filed, the Court will not be involved at all. The process is timely and the costs are kept to a minimum.



Testing to remove doubt: “Presumed fathers” may want DNA testing because they were married to the mother at the time of conception and are paying child support, but have doubts about whether they are in fact the father.



“Prospective fathers” are not able to use the process: The scheme outlined by the Law Commission only includes “parents”; the Law Commission did not recommend that the scheme would apply to “prospective fathers”. The scheme clearly assumes that the “presumed father” has some custody of the child because the scheme only works where this is the case. We do not consider that the scheme should be expanded to include “prospective fathers”.



Mother can still refuse: The proposed process for voluntary DNA testing doesn’t explicitly deal with the situation where, although no objection has been lodged after 28 days, the father is not allowed access to the child to have the child tested (i.e. the mother hides the child). At this stage, the father will probably have to make an application to court and rely on the ability of courts to order DNA tests.

The proposed legal scheme for voluntary testing favoured by the Law Commission is as follows: Notice served: The parent wanting the test serves notice of the test on the other parent and provides proof of service to the testing provider.



Objection: The objecting parent then has 28 days to file an objection in court.



Testing provider waits: The testing provider waits 28 days from the date of notice to see whether an objection is filed by the other parent in court.



Testing provider can carry out test: If no objection is filed after 28 days, the testing provider carries out the test.



Objection delays the process: If an objection is filed, the Court notifies the testing provider to wait until the issue is determined before proceeding with the test.



Court has power to allow test if there is delay: The Court can cancel the notice to the testing provider, so that they can undertake the test, if the Court decides that the objecting party has unreasonably delayed the Court determination.



Court would prevent testing only for “compelling reasons”: The Court would only rule to prevent DNA testing where there are compelling reasons why testing would not be in the best interests of justice including in the best interests of the child (examples given are where the child is very unwell or where there have been credible threats of violence if the results disclose a particular outcome).

Results: The results are delivered to each parent by the testing provider at the same time.

3.1.4. Points to consider about the Law commission’s proposal

3.1.3. Proposed legal scheme for voluntary testing



| 4

3.2. DNA testing: Court Intervention The Law Commission also considers the situation where DNA tests are the subject of court intervention. This will arise as part of an application for a declaration

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

of paternity (set out above at 2.3) or as part of an application for a paternity order (set out above at 2.2). The Law Commission recommends that courts be given the ability to make orders for DNA tests to be carried out.



How the Court should determine whether to order DNA test: In deciding whether to order DNA testing, the Law Commission suggests that the Court should consider whether there is a “reasonable possibility that a person recognised as a parent is not the genetic parent or that a person not recognised as a parent is the genetic parent”.



Competing interests: The Law Commission recommends that where the above threshold is met, the Court should order DNA testing unless there are “compelling reasons why it would not be in the interests of justice, including the best interests of the child”.



Consequences for refusal of DNA test: The Law Commission notes that the “persistent refusal of some people to comply in good faith with court directions can have serious consequences for the children and other parties involved”.8



Sanctions for refusal: The Law Commission suggests that if an order for a DNA test is refused, parties should be able to use the process set out in the Care of Children Act 2004. This process begins with the parties being able to request counselling. The court also has the option of issuing a warrant for enforcement of the order by a named person (i.e. the “prospective father”), a social worker or the Police. Once this warrant is issued, the named person would have the legal right to remove the child and take him or her to be tested without impediment.



Penalty for intentional obstruction: The Law Commission also recommends that where a person intentionally obstructs an order or the execution of a warrant (for example, where the mother hides the child), this be an offence under the Care of Children Act 2004 with have a penalty of imprisonment for up to three months or a fine of up to $2500.



Consistent with the Court of Appeal decision: The Law Commission notes that giving the courts the statutory authority to order DNA testing would be in accordance with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in T v S v Anor.9

3.2.1. Current situation As mentioned above, the current situation is that the Court can recommend, but not order, that DNA tests be carried out to determine paternity, as part of a court hearing on paternity. This power to recommend DNA tests is set out in section 54 of the Family Proceedings Act. The Court has developed principles for deciding whether to make a recommendation that DNA testing is carried out. The Court must first find that there is evidence to establish a prima facie case; and then consider whether to recommend testing. The Law Commission notes that this “protects children against vexatious litigants and unjustifiable testing”.7 3.2.2. No penalty The Law Commission notes that if a person refuses to comply with a recommendation for a DNA test there is no penalty (although where a man refuses to comply under an application for a paternity order, there is an inference that is drawn). 3.2.3. Law Commission recommendation The Law Commission recommends that instead of being able to recommend that DNA tests are carried out, courts should be able to make an order for DNA testing on children, young persons and adults. Points to note about this recommendation include: •

“Prospective fathers” can gain order for DNA test: “Prospective fathers” are able to make an application for a declaration of paternity under the Care of Children Act. Under the Law Commission’s recommendation, a court hearing the application by the “prospective father” could order that a mother have her child DNA-tested (rather than merely recommending that this take place).

| 5

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand





In accordance with international obligations: The Law Commission also notes that giving courts the authority to order DNA tests would give “better effect to New Zealand’s international obligations to enable children to know their parents and genetic identity”.10

are the father of the child to have a court order a DNA test. •

Proposal will assist “prospective fathers”: This amendment will assist men who apply to the Family or High Court for a declaration of paternity under section 10 of the Status of Children Act.

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS There are a number of different changes that need to be made to the existing law to ensure that the process for determining paternity is improved. This paper lists three policy recommendations below. Two out of the three recommendations listed below are either implementing the Law Commission’s proposals or are following the precedent of the Court of Appeal. The recommendations set out below are: •

Give courts the power to order DNA testing;



Implement the Law Commission’s proposal for voluntary DNA testing; and



Enable men to apply for paternity orders.



Adopt the threshold test: The Law Commission’s proposal should be adopted in full, including the threshold test. In deciding whether to order DNA testing of a child, the Law Commission suggests that the Court should consider whether there is a “reasonable possibility that a person recognised as a parent is not the genetic parent or that a person not recognised as a parent is the genetic parent”. This is a low test to be met and it will enable most, if not all, men who truly believe they

Consider “best interests of the child”: Where the above threshold is met, the Law Commission recommends that the Court should order DNA testing unless there are “compelling reasons why it would not be in the interests of justice, including the best interests of the child”. When considering the Law Commission’s reference to “the best interests of the child”, the following comment from the Law Commission should be borne in mind: “The argument [that it would not be in the child’s best interest’s to determine parentage by testing because it might distress the child by disrupting his or her current parenting arrangements] has been rejected by the courts on the basis that the long-term consequences to the child of uncertainty surrounding his or her parentage outweigh the short-term disruption to the child’s current family life that resolving parentage might cause.”11



Add an offence provision: In addition to the Law Commission’s proposal, we recommend that the offence provision of section 53 of the Family Proceedings Act is extended. This section makes it an offence, liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $1,000 to make false statements in paternity proceedings. This provision should apply to any false statement made in any hearing of a declaration of paternity, as well as to any false statement made whilst following the scheme for voluntary DNA testing.



Offence for malicious and vexatious claims: The Law Commission considers that the threshold it recommends is enough to ensure that vexatious litigants do not bring paternity claims. However, the offence provision above, and the fine it imposes, should apply to any application the Court considers to be malicious or vexatious.



Adopt the penalty provisions and increase the penalty: The range of penalties under the Care of Children Act 2004 should be adopted, to ensure compliance with the enforcement orders. The penalty for intentionally obstructing an order or execution of a warrant should be increased from

4.1. Give courts the power to order DNA testing The primary recommendation of this paper is the Law Commission’s suggestion that section 54 of the Family Proceedings Act be amended to give courts the power to order DNA tests, rather than just recommend them, is implemented. As part of this recommendation, the follow changes are also recommended:

| 6

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

$2,500 to $5,000, or even more to have greater effect. If the Law Commission’s recommendation is adopted, it would enable a “prospective father” or a “presumed father” to apply for a declaration of paternity under section 10 of the Status of Children Act and then have the Court order a DNA test to resolve the issue quickly and fairly easily. The amendment would also make it clear what is to happen when a person refuses an order for a DNA test and would avoid the current situation where the child becomes a ward of the state for the purposes of DNA testing. 4.2. Implement the Law Commission’s proposal for voluntary DNA testing The second recommendation is that the Law Commission’s proposal for “voluntary DNA testing” as outlined above at 3.1.1 is implemented. This should be extended to include “prospective fathers” but should include “presumed fathers”. The scheme is clearly designed for the situation where the “presumed father” has some custody of the child and the recommendation set out above at 4.1 will provide a more appropriate procedure for “prospective fathers” whilst still being relatively fast and efficient. 4.3. Enable men to apply for paternity orders The third recommendation is that section 47 of the Family Proceedings Act is amended so that both “presumed fathers” and “prospective fathers” can apply to the Family Court for a paternity order, as mothers can. •

This is the only suggestion that is not based on the Law Commission’s suggestions or a Court of Appeal precedent.



If section 47 was amended to allow other applicants, then it may not be necessary to retain the process for an application for a declaration of paternity under section 10 of the Status of Children Act.



If section 47 was amended, there may be consequential amendments throughout the Family Proceedings Act that need to be made.

| 7

5. FURTHER ISSUES TO CONSIDER A number of concerns may be raised in response to the above three recommendations. It is worth noting that the recommendations are based on the Law Commission’s recommendations, they are fair and are in accordance with the guiding principles. 5.1. A potential father’s right to request a DNA test There may be a concern that vexatious or vindictive men may claim that they have had a relationship with the mother and are entitled to have a paternity test, when there is no possibility of this. The question which may then be raised is how a potential father should establish that he has the right to request a DNA test to establish paternity. 5.1.1. The situation for mothers In accordance with the guiding principle that the law provides broadly consistent treatment to both mothers and fathers, it is helpful to outline the situation for mothers. Currently a mother has an unfettered “right” to apply for a paternity order against any man (apart from her husband who is already assumed to be the father) and her evidence in Court does not need to be corroborated. The application for a paternity order will often involve a recommendation by the Court that the man undergo a parentage test and if he refuses, then the usual presumption is that he is the father. So although a mother does not have a right to request a man has a DNA test, she can, through an application for a paternity order, make it very difficult for a man to refuse to have a DNA test. 5.1.2. Establishing a “right” to request a DNA test In deciding whether to order DNA testing of a child, the Law Commission suggests that the Court should consider whether there is a “reasonable possibility that a person recognised as a parent is not the genetic parent or that a person not recognised as a parent is the genetic parent”. The Law Commission recommends that where the above threshold is met, the Court should order DNA testing unless there are “compelling reasons why it

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

would not be in the interests of justice, including the best interests of the child”. It is important to note that the Law Commission considers that the current threshold for deciding whether to recommend a DNA test (and which could be considered a more general threshold) is enough to ensure that vexatious litigants do not bring paternity claims. In addition, one of the recommendations above is that a provision should be included to make it an offence to make a false statement in a paternity hearing or to bring a malicious or vexatious application. 5.1.3. Criteria a man must meet before being able to request a test As set out above, we consider that a man must set out that he is a “person not recognised as a parent” and that there a “reasonable possibility” that he is the genetic parent. 5.2. Dealing with “random or malicious” men A question may be raised about how any new paternity legislation would deal with “random or malicious” men who might claim to have had a relationship with the mother and claim they are entitled to have a test. It is very unlikely that random and malicious men will claim that they have had a relationship with the mother and are entitled to have the child tested. The implications of being the father of a child are financially significant. In addition, the following safeguards would be in place: •

Cost: It may be that the cost of the test (about $1000) plus any legal costs incurred for drafting, filing and serving legal proceedings, are enough of a hurdle to ensure that “random or malicious men” do not apply to have a child DNA-tested.



Possible fine: Under the proposal set out above, a court would have the ability impose a fine or penalty if the man made any false statement in court. You could also extend this fine to applications the Court considers to be malicious or vexatious.



Harassment Act 1997: In addition, the Harassment

| 8

Act 1997 already operates to prohibit random and malicious acts of this kind and has appropriate penalties in place. 5.3. Ability of the mother to refuse a DNA test The question may be raised whether the mother should have the ability to refuse her child undergoing a test and on what grounds she could do this. 5.3.1. Why would a mother refuse? It is important to consider why a mother would refuse a parentage test, particularly where the tests are unobtrusive (i.e. a mouth swab) and are not known to cause major stress to the child. If the mother suspects the man is the father and refuses the test, then she is clearly not acting in the child’s best interests. If the mother suspects that the man is not the father, then a simple test will confirm this and the issue will be dealt with at no cost to her. 5.3.2. Voluntary DNA testing – right to object not refuse In the Law Commission’s proposal for “voluntary DNA testing” (which only applies to “presumed fathers”) the mother would have 28 days to object to the requirement that her child is DNA-tested. After considering the objection, the court can intervene and cancel the DNA testing. We recommend adopting the standard that the Law Commission suggested: “The court only intervenes to prevent testing where there are compelling reasons why testing would not be in the interests of justice, including the best interests of the child”.12 We do not consider that there is an absolute right to refuse DNA testing of the child. 5.3.3. Court intervention in DNA testing - no right to refuse DNA testing In terms of DNA testing which is not voluntary and requires court intervention, the mother should not have the right to refuse a DNA test on her child. •

Best interests of the child: As the Law Commission has noted, “It is in the best interests of the chid,

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

his or her parents and the general public that parentage determinations are made on the basis of accurate DNA parentage testing”.13 •





Consequences of refusal: In addition, they note that “the persistent refusal of some people to comply in good faith with court directions can have serious consequences for the children and other parties involved”. 14 Court applies threshold: The Law Commission’s recommendation (which we endorse) is to adopt a threshold test and leave it to the Court to consider whether there is a “reasonable possibility that a person recognised as a parent is not the genetic parent or that a person not recognised as a parent is the genetic parent”. Their recommendation also leaves it in the hands of the Court to refuse DNA testing where there are “compelling reasons why it would not be in the interests of justice, including the best interests of the child”. International obligations: In addition, we agree with the Law Commission that court-ordered DNA tests would be in accordance with our international obligations under UNCROC and the recent Court of Appeal decision.

In short, we consider there is no reason in law or policy whey a mother should have the right to refuse that her child has a DNA test. 5.3.4. Accessibility of test It will be important that the tests are reasonably accessible (i.e. easy for the mother to travel to), have little impact on the child and are of little or no cost to her (we recommend below that costs of the test be carried by the “prospective father”). As samples can be taken by the child’s GP and as they do not involve a blood test, this should be easy to satisfy. 5.4. How competing claims would be heard and decided It is important to consider how the various claims of the “prospective” or “presumed” father and the mother would be heard and decided. We consider that the two

| 9

recommendations of the Law Commission relating to voluntary DNA testing and DNA testing with court intervention provide the mechanism for claims to be heard and decided. 5.5. Costs and timing implications Another question to be considered is who would bear the costs of competing claims and what the timing implications would be of possible delays. Our recommendations are set out below: •

“Presumed fathers”: If the man requesting a DNA test is already a “presumed father”, the costs of the test should be split evenly between the mother and the father and each party should bear their own legal costs.



“Prospective fathers”: If the man requesting a DNA test is a “prospective father”, he should bear the full costs of the DNA test.



Court empowered to award costs: In both cases, the Court should be empowered to make any award of costs that it sees fit, including an award of costs for the initial DNA test.

5.6. Method of mother’s consent to parentage test A further consideration is whether a mother’s consent to parentage testing should be given in writing, or whether the Bill should specify a means of obtaining consent. Once again, the considerations of timeliness and the importance of introducing an easy and inexpensive process dictate that the consent should just be in writing. Giving consent to a parentage test is not a complicated matter and we can not foresee difficulties in parents getting this right. 6. CONCLUSION Changes to the law, via a private member’s bill, or a government bill would provide the opportunity to make the process for men determining paternity quicker and more effective, whilst still retaining protective safeguards for mothers. Two out of the three recommendations listed above

www. m a x i m .or g.nz

Paternity texting in New Zealand

| 10

simply adopt suggestions of the Law Commission and should therefore be readily accepted. Recommendations as set out above would provide effective solutions to complicated problems and send a clear message that fathers, as well as mothers, are important in their children’s lives.

ENDNOTES 1

New Zealand Herald “Paternity test tipped to be put off” 15 March 2006, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00089FE3-AE251416-96C883027AF10120.

2

T v S and Anor CA249/02 Court of Appeal, Anderson P, Hammond J and William J, 17 December 2004.

3

T v S and Anor (17 December 2004) Court of Appeal CA249/02 Anderson P, Hammond J and William J.

4

Reported at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story. cfm?storyid=000AD1A6-4F48-1419-B67283027AF10150

5

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 41.

6

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 43.

7

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 48.

8

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 49.

9

T v S and Anor (17 December 2004) Court of Appeal CA249/02 Anderson P, Hammond J and William J.

10

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 48.

11

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 47.

12

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 45.

13

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 47.

14

Law Commission New Issues in Legal Parenthood Report 88, April 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, page 49.

www. m a x i m .or g.nz