Knowledge Base

Paternity

Home / I am single ,in my 30'’s and had an affair with a well-known person in our community. I got pregnant. He tried to pressurize me into having an abortion but I refused. He cut off all contact with me shortly afterwards saying a baby outside wedlock would endanger his reputation and marriage. Now I want to sue him for child maintenance for my baby but am worried that I will fail because I cannot prove he is the father. I know he won’t undergo any tests that could prove paternity – he refused to co-operate with any medical tests during my pregnancy which required samples from the ‘ father’. Can he still be declared the father and be made to support my child if he refuses paternity testing ?

I am single ,in my 30’’s and had an affair with a well-known person in our community. I got pregnant. He tried to pressurize me into having an abortion but I refused. He cut off all contact with me shortly afterwards saying a baby outside wedlock would endanger his reputation and marriage. Now I want to sue him for child maintenance for my baby but am worried that I will fail because I cannot prove he is the father. I know he won’t undergo any tests that could prove paternity – he refused to co-operate with any medical tests during my pregnancy which required samples from the ‘ father’. Can he still be declared the father and be made to support my child if he refuses paternity testing ?

By: דיאנה שאלתיאלPublished on: 07 June, 2022
Yes ! A court can declare a person a biological father on the basis of his refusal to undergo D.N.A.testing , in certain circumstances.A few years ago the Beersheva Family Court declared the defendant, the plaintiff’s gynaecologist, to be the father of her child, even though he refused to undergo D.N.A. testing. The defendant claimed that such testing would be likely to ‘harm his good name’ and endanger his marriage, and the family’s honour. These do not constitute ‘reasonable’ grounds for his refusal, the court said. On the contrary , if anyone knew of the case, the tests would ‘clear his name’, otherwise proceedings were behind closed doors and there was a ban on publication of names, it said.
The defendant’s refusal to undergo testing, plus other evidence including records of telephone conversations between the parties , exposed inconsistencies and illogicalities in his testimony, and thus gave preference to the plaintiff’s claims.

 


* We hope you find our website useful and easy to use. Please note, however, that the information provided on it is not a substitute for personal legal counselling which is available upon payment.

Skip to content