C v C (Jersey)

THE BOARD ORDERED that no one shall publish or reveal the name or address of the child who is the subject of these proceedings or publish or reveal any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the child or any member of his family in connection with these proceedings.

Michaelmas Term

[2019] UKPC 40

Privy Council Appeal No 0084 of 2016

JUDGMENT

LORD WILSON:

Introduction

1.                  The Royal Court in Jersey has ordered the appellant, an adult male, to make periodical payments to the mother of a male child for that child’s benefit. The appellant and the mother were never married. At one time, before a court in Latvia, they each averred that the appellant was the boy’s biological father. Now they each aver that he is not the boy’s biological father. So the appellant submits that it is an agreed fact that he is not the boy’s biological father; and that therefore he should not have been ordered to make periodical payments for the boy’s benefit.

2.                  There is no denying that it is at present agreed between the parties that the appellant is not the boy’s biological father. But is it a fact that he is not the biological father? Curious though it may seem in the light of the agreement between the parties, the history raises doubts in this respect. But the overarching question is whether the appellant is a “parent” of the boy for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Royal Court to make the order against him. And the narrower question is whether the Royal Court was entitled to conclude, by reference only to an order made by the court in Latvia, that the appellant was the boy’s “parent”; and that therefore it could make the order for periodical payments without having to decide for itself, on the evidence before it, that he was his biological father and therefore his parent.

3.                  At the outset of the hearing on 20 February 2019 the Board ordered that no one should publish in connection with the appeal the name or address of the boy or any information likely to lead to his identification or that of any member of his family. So the clarity which attends the conventional recital of specific facts in the Opinions of the Board will to a substantial extent be lost because of the need to blur recital of many of the relevant facts so as to conform with the order for anonymity.

4.                  The order for periodical payments to be made by the appellant for the benefit of the boy, which was in the sum…