Keevers v Chapman

The case of Keevers v Chapman involved a dispute over the parentage of Adrian Chapman, who claimed to be the only child of the deceased, Morris Keevers. The applicant, who was granted limited letters of administration, sought an order that Adrian undertake a parentage procedure, specifically a parentage testing order under section 11 of the Status of Children Act 1978. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant such an order. Adrian argued that several rebuttable presumptions were in his favour, including that he was born during the marriage of his parents, and that Morris, being named on his birth certificate, was presumed to be his father. These presumptions, however, could be rebutted on the balance of probabilities. Adrian also pointed to a decision in divorce proceedings that the requirements of section 71 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) had been met concerning him, though this did not directly address his parentage.

The applicant countered with various pieces of evidence, including statements from Morris's siblings and Morris himself, which cast doubt on Adrian's parentage. Morris had explicitly stated that Adrian was not his son, believed his wife was committing adultery, thought he was sterile, and expressed a desire that Adrian should not benefit from his estate. Adrian's birth certificate was also amended to change his surname from Keevers to Chapman, and Morris had contested Adrian's paternity in divorce proceedings. Additionally, Adrian had initially agreed to a DNA test but later withdrew. The court held that the evidence presented by the applicant supported an honest, bona fide, and reasonable belief that there were doubts about Adrian's parentage, which warranted the issuance of a parentage testing order.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered that Adrian Chapman undergo a parentage test. The decision was based on the strong evidence provided by the applicant, which the court found to be credible and sufficient to justify the order. This decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence, even if it includes hearsay, in applications for parentage testing orders. The court's ruling underscored the need to address such disputes promptly, especially given the passage of time and the potential impact on the memories of those involved.