- This case concerns the paternity of a child, “YZ”, in Nanyuki, Kenya. The mother, and a number of other mothers in that area, claimed that the biological fathers of their children were British servicemen from the British Army Training Unit in Kenya. The mother in this case claimed that “UVW” was YZ’s biological father and sought a declaration of parentage.
- The mother presented YZ for the taking of samples for testing. One sample was used to cross-reference against the Ancestry.com database and a second sample was later stored at King's College London. UVW was identified as YZ’s putative father through matching samples with the database. In summary, the mother says she met UVW in 2013, they formed a relationship, she fell pregnant with YZ in 2018 but then found out UVW had a partner in the UK. YZ’s birth certificate bears UVW’s name as his father. The mother said that her later approaches to the British Army in Kenya to assist her to connect with UVW had effectively been brushed aside. UVW denied he is YZ’s father.
- On 3 October 2025 Sir Andrew McFarlane gave directions for DNA testing to ascertain whether UVW was or was not excluded from being YZ's father. On 23 February 2026 the matter was back before Sir Andrew McFarlane where a report to the court confirmed that UVW provided a sample on 18 December 2025 and that after an assessment of the genetic tests results from both his and YZ's samples, the results are over 1 billion times more likely to be seen if UVW is YZ's father than if an unrelated East African heritage man is the father and the figure corresponds to a relative chance of paternity of over 99.9999999%.
- On 24 March 2026 UVW appeared before the court and informed Sir Andrew McFarlane that he did not know the mother, was not at any point in a relationship with her and had not had sexual intercourse with her. He contended that a) he was not satisfied that the sample tested that confirms paternity was a sample of his DNA, b) he questioned the names provided on the child's birth certificate and how the mother was able to obtain this document, c) he queried how the sample was collected from YZ in Kenya and d) he queried the breakdown of the ethnicity of ancestry.com.
- In response to UVW’s denial of ever having met the mother, she filed and served a statement which exhibited to it a photograph of her and UVW sitting together enjoying a drink at a casino. When presented with this evidence, UVW told Mr Justice Poole under affirmation that he had in fact met the mother just once (on that occasion when the photograph was taken) but denied ever having sex with the mother.
- UVW’s main points were:
- There was an error in dating the sample taken from him. Other errors could have occurred in the chain of evidence.
- The sample taken from him was labelled with someone else's name.
- The sample taken at KCL could have been from a different man.
- The case reminds us of the applicable law – section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, which gives the court the jurisdiction to determine applications for declarations of parentage. The burden of proof of paternity lies on the applicant and the civil standard of proof applies. Mr Justice Poole reminded himself of the Lucas direction.
- Mr Justice Poole found that UVW’s case that his DNA sample may have been mis-labelled or otherwise confused with a sample given by someone else, was without any merit. The UVW had ambitiously argued that his sample had been confused with those of another man. Further, UVW changed his account as the other evidence changed and the court found that UVW knowingly misled the court on 24 March 2026, that he continued to mislead the court in his oral evidence and that he misled the court about his relationship with the mother in order to conceal the possibility that he could be YZ's father.
- In contrast, Mr Justice Poole found that the mother was entirely credible in her account that she had a sexual relationship with UVW in Kenya. The mother gave compelling evidence that she and UVW continued to have sex when they met up in Kenya including in or about June to early July 2018 when YZ was probably conceived. The court did not find that the mother had misled the court which was the finding UVW had invited the court to make.
- The court was not persuaded that DNA testing should be re-done. At paragraph 33 of the judgment, Mr Justice Poole concluded “without hesitation that UVW is YZ's father. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the declaration of parentage should be made accordingly.”
- The judgment can be viewed here: YZ, Re (Declaration of Parentage: BATUK: DNA Evidence) [2026] EWHC 1601 (Fam) (26 June 2026).
