A Jersey businessman has been told that he is going to have to contribute to the upbringing of his ex-girlfriend’s son after signing a paternity agreement – despite not being the biological or adopted father.
The man, who has not been named, had made a “formal acknowledgement of paternity” under Latvian law for the child, but tried to dispute the arrangement after the couple broke up in 2010.
The mother of the boy is from Latvia, and the court case had originally been heard there – with the Latvian Supreme Court ruling in 2013 that, having signed the acknowledgement declaration, the father was legally and financially responsible for the child.
The Royal Court has now upheld that ruling, meaning that the father has to pay monthly maintenance, lump sums and backpayments that have been described as “substantial”.
Neither the father nor the mother have been identified.
Family law specialist Advocate Jamie Orchard from Viberts, who successfully represented the mother in the proceedings, said that the case had been a complex and unique one.
He added that the case should not concern unmarried, non-biological ‘fathers’ of their partners’ children from previous relationships because the case hinged on the formal Latvian paternity acknowledgement that the man had signed.
Advocate Orchard said: “Under private international law, a matter that has been litigated in another jurisdiction should not be capable of being re-litigated in Jersey, providing it satisfies a number of criteria. One of those criteria gave us the leverage needed for our client; namely that ‘the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, on the merits, are final and conclusive’.
“This case was unique in that the father had voluntarily entered into a legally binding declaration in a foreign jurisdiction, which defined his status as the child’s father. There is no such similar process in Jersey.
“What it does confirm is that where a man enters into such a declaration, in Latvia or elsewhere, those declarations are likely to be recognised in Jersey should either party and or the child move to Jersey.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.