After the Barnsley Council got to know about the case, they decided to take legal action against the man and asked him to undergo a paternity test. Although a High Court judge ruled that the man cannot be forced to take a paternity test.
The bizarre step was taken by the man and his then-partner after they faced fertility issues and finally gave birth to a son.
The judge said that the council had no stake in the result of any test in the court ruling. The court was also learned that the man, his father, and his partner had always intended to keep the arrangement around the conception of the child a secret.
The court hearing, which was held in January, said that the man shared a father-and-son relationship with the five-year-old child. The issue was discovered by Barnsley Council in separate proceedings, which appealed to the High Court in Sheffield to give the order for DNA tests.
According to The Guardian, because of legal reasons, the man has not disclosed the names of the persons in this case identified as PQ in the legal document. PQ and his partner (JK) had experienced fertility problems, so he agreed to mix his sperm with his father's (RS). It was then injected into the woman. The arrangement led to the birth of a now-five-year-old boy (named D in the court documents).
Justice Poole dismissed the council's request in his ruling and said that they had no parental responsibility or a personal interest in the biological parentage of the boy.
Justice Poole said that “it may wish to know who D’s biological father is, but it has no stake in the outcome of its application. A wish to uphold the public interest in maintaining accurate records of births does not confer a personal interest in the determination of such an application”.
However, the court calls the child 'unique'.
The judge said that the family had created a welfare minefield. Further, he added that he cannot believe that JK (the mother), PQ (the man), and RS (his father) properly thought through the ramifications of their scheme for JK to become pregnant; otherwise, it is unlikely that they would have embarked upon it.
The judge stated that the boy is a unique child who would not exist but for the unusual arrangements made for his conception. But those arrangements have also created the potential for him to suffer emotional harm were he to learn of them.
Finally, it was concluded that the decision rests with the family—whether they want to undergo a paternity test to tell the child about his real father.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Komal Bhoi/MSM)
