No need for child to be called into paternity suit

A court case filed by a man claiming to be the natural father of a child who had been adopted was declared admissible by the Court of Appeal.

In a judgment delivered yesterday following an appeal on a preliminary decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the man was entitled to file his suit but that the minor child was not to be called into the suit.

The child was to be represented by curators who were to protect her interests. The case commenced in 2004 when the man, IM, filed his writ of summons against SC. IM told the Family Court that he had a relationship with SC who had become pregnant with his child. However, she had told him that she had miscarried and their relationship ended.

IM later discovered that SC had delivered a girl who was later adopted. The child's birth certificate stated that the father was unknown. IM requested the Family Court to declare that he was the natural father and to order the necessary corrections to the child's birth certificate. The Director of Public Registry pleaded that the action was not admissible because it ought to have been filed against all the persons concerned, including the child's adoptive parents.

The first court dismissed the director's plea and the director then appealed to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

On appeal, the court noted that this was a very sensitive issue. The fact that IM was requesting to be declared the biological father of the child had to be respected in the interests of the child herself. If, in the future, the child wished to know who her natural parents were, she was entitled to do so. The child was entitled to be given all the necessary means to recognise her biological parents and, if she wished to do so, to contact them. No obstacles ought to be put in her path. Furthermore, if in the future, the child might need some organ transplant, this would very probably have to be forthcoming from some person related to her. It was, therefore, good for her natural father to be known.

The Court of Appeal declared that it agreed with the first court in the sense that the fact that the child had been adopted was not an obstacle to the filing of an action for a declaration of paternity. The court, however, ruled that there was no need for the child to be called into the suit. At present the child was, legally, the daughter of her adoptive parents who had no legal relationship with IM. In conclusion, the court appointed two curators to represent the best interests of the child and ordered the case to be continued before the first court.

The court banned publication of the parties' names on the government website.