A court yesterday ruled that a man's fundamental human rights had been violated by the fact that he only discovered he was not the biological father of children bearing his surname after the legal time limit for disavowing paternity had elapsed.
He is now to be declared not the children's father.
The man filed a constitutional application before Mr Justice Gino Camilleri in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Director of Public Registry. His wife was later called into the suit.
The man claimed he had cohabited with his partner for some time before they were married. She gave birth to twin daughters shortly after the marriage and he had believed his wife when she said he was their father. The man had as a result, registered the birth of the twins and claimed to be their father.
However, when he later doubted the paternity of the children, the six-month time limit for filing an action for disavowal of paternity had lapsed and he was barred from doing so. The man's mother, as an interested party to the issue, filed an action for a declaration that the twins were not her son's children. Although his mother's claim was dismissed by the Family Court, the DNA evidence produced proved clearly that the children were not his.
The man claimed that the fact that he was not legally entitled to contest the paternity of the twins due to the lapse of time was in violation of his fundamental right to a fair hearing, to the protection of family life and to freedom from discrimination.
Mr Justice Camilleri declared that the man had voluntarily declared himself to be the father of the twin girls born to his wife. The man had told the court that, before their marriage, his wife had left him for some weeks as she was cohabiting with two men who had escaped from prison. The woman had then told her husband she was pregnant and that the children were his. They got married and the man registered himself as the children's father on the assurance from his wife that this was the case.
It was only after the legal period of six months had elapsed that he doubted his wife's assurance and sought a legal remedy.
Mr Justice Camilleri said the DNA tests carried out in the course of the litigation filed by the man's mother had categorically excluded him as the children's father.
In the course of the constitutional proceedings filed by him, the court had ordered DNA test to be carried out again but his wife had not complied with this order and had not undergone the testing on her or on her twin daughters. As a result, the court was convinced the man was not the father.
The paternity of a child, said the court, could not depend on a legal presumption if there was medical evidence to the contrary. Children had certain rights in respect to their parents and were entitled to be maintained by them.
Mr Justice Camilleri concluded that the man's right to a fair hearing had been violated as he had been deprived of the right to recourse to the courts due to the legal time limit to contest paternity. However, the six-month time limit did not apply to persons apart from the father, so the man's claim that he was discriminated against was also justified. His claim that his right to enjoyment of his family right had been violated had also been proven, said the court.
In conclusion, the court ruled that the man was to be declared as not being the father of the twin girls. That was the only remedy the court thought suitable in the circumstances of the case. If the man wished to be reimbursed the maintenance he had paid for the girls, he would have to go through the normal courts.
Lawyers David Camilleri and José Herrera appeared for the man.