Courts | TSI denies appeal in paternity case

The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has rejected the appeal of a man who was attributed the legal paternity of a 16-year-old boy born in Taiwan by the Court of First Instance (TJB), the Office of the Courts of Second Instance and Final Appeal revealed in a statement.

The case goes back to the early 2000s, when the boy’s mother, who was from Taiwan, began a relationship with the man (the defendant) while she was working as a tour guide in Macau.

The child was born on November 28, 2002 in Taiwan, although none of the boy’s documents, including the birth certificate, mention the name of the father.

In 2017, the boy initiated a case with the TJB, calling for legal paternity to be attributed to the man who was his mother’s boyfriend at the time.

In the court’s diligences, it was requested that the man allow a DNA test to be performed to ascertain whether the two were related by blood.

After the defendant refused, the judge at the TJB, based on the case information and the couple’s reported relationship in the period before the birth of the child,  decided to accept the teenager’s request and order the attribution of paternity to the defendant, who is now appealing to the TSI.

After reviewing the appeal, the collective of judges of the TSI ruled that the decision of the TJB court seemed to have been made according to all the rules, noting that the judge was competent in making the decision based on the information they possess.

The TSI judges also noted that the decision could only be reverted with proof that it is inaccurate, which was absent due to the defendant’s refusal to perform the DNA test requested by the court.

The TSI also noted that refusal to cooperate with the courts and provide clear evidence was only acceptable in cases where the action constitutes a violation of the physical or moral integrity of those involved, which is not applicable to a DNA test, as only a saliva sample is needed.

The TSI also considered the fact that the TJB judge had made the decision according to his competence and based on the rules of logic and of common experience, and that the decision seemed to be appropriate and did not constitute a serious mistake in the examination of evidence and assessment of disputed facts, and therefore dismissed the appeal of the father. RM