The mother, who had joint Russian and Latvian nationality, and C, a British national, resident and domiciled in Jersey, engaged in a sporadic relationship in Latvia, where the mother was habitually resident and domiciled. The mother gave birth to her son in Latvia and, at that time, contended that C was not the boy’s father and registered another man as such on the birth certificate. The boy was, therefore, a national of Latvia, where he was habitually resident and domiciled. Subsequently, after the resumption of their relationship, the mother and C intended to marry and C applied to a Latvian court for a declaration of his paternity of the boy. The application was granted with the result that, under Latvian law, C’s registration as the boy’s father, based on his voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, confirmed his biological parentage of him. Their relationship, however, ended when the child was approximately seven years old. The mother applied to the Royal Court in Jersey for an order that C should make financial provision for the boy, despite stating that he was not the boy’s father. In the meantime, a Latvian court dismissed C’s application to annul the registration of his paternity. C then ceased making voluntary payments for the boy’s support and the mother’s application for financial provision, which had been adjourned pending determination of C’s application in Latvia, then proceeded. The mother’s application was allowed and C’s appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Bailiff, rejecting C’s argument that in light of the fact that both he and the mother agreed that he was not the boy’s father, it had not been open to the court to make any order for financial provision for the boy. On C’s further appeal, the Court of Appeal of Jersey held that the courts of Jersey could, under rules of private international law, recognise the Latvian order as establishing C’s parenthood for the purposes of Latvian law and dismissed the appeal. Although the courts of Jersey appeared to have no statutory jurisdiction to make a free-standing declaration of parentage, there was jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales by virtue of section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, as inserted, which extended the availability of an application for a declaration of parentage beyond the person who sought to establish the identity of his or her parentage.
On C’s appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—
Held, dismissing the appeal, application of the principle of jurisdictional reciprocity remained part of the common law in relation to certain family matters, in particular, to adoption. Applying that principle, a child’s domicile of origin governed her legitimacy even if it was not the domicile of her father. In the present case, unless the Royal Court of Jersey were to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, the courts of Jersey would have no jurisdiction to grant a free-standing declaration of parentage, such as was made in Latvia by the registration of C as the boy’s father. The Court of Appeal of Jersey was right to recognise that the Latvian declaration established C’s paternity for the purpose of Latvian law and the status of the boy as C’s son did not limp as between one jurisdiction and the other. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that the Jersey courts had not been required to decide for themselves whether C was the boy’s biological father (judgment, paras 40–44, 45, 53, 58, 59).
Per curiam. In the absence of a clear answer to the question about jurisdiction under their own law, the courts of Jersey are likely to have regard to the law of England and Wales, including section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, as inserted, which allows jurisdiction to grant a free-standing declaration of parentage to, inter alia, a person who seeks to establish his parenthood of another named person. Accordingly, had C, being habitually resident and domiciled in Jersey, applied to the English court for a declaration of his parentage of a boy either domiciled in England on the date of the application or habitually resident there throughout the preceding year, it would have had jurisdiction to entertain his application (post, paras 47, 51, 52).
Richard Todd QC and Simon Calhaem (instructed by Mishcon de Reya llp) for C.
Deirdre Fottrell QC, Richard Castle and Eleri Jones (instructed by Blake Morgan llp, Oxford) for the mother.