Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Prime
How phone chats unlocked freedom for man caught in paternity fraud
The court traced emails sent between May and September 2025, confirming that she had been served under the Civil Procedure Rules but chose not to participate.
The High Court has ordered the removal of a man’s name from a child’s birth record after DNA evidence proved he was not the biological father, resolving a dispute that began with text messages discovered on a mobile phone.
In the ruling, the Court stated that scientific evidence had “rebutted any presumption of paternity” and directed the Registrar of Births and Deaths to amend the child’s birth certificate accordingly.
The case was filed by a man identified as KZI, who told the court that his lover, Ms CS, had led him to believe he was the father of a child born in April 2017. His name had been listed on the birth certificate at the time.
According to court documents, Mr KZ’s doubts arose in April 2025 when the child visited his house with a phone previously owned by the mother.
Upon scrolling through the device, he found messages sent by the woman demanding child support payments from another man for a child named Nicholas.
These messages raised suspicions about his own paternity, prompting him to seek a DNA test. The test, conducted at Labtest Zote Diagnostics, returned a 0 percent probability of paternity in a report dated April 22, 2025.
Mr KZ subsequently moved to court and applied for orders directing the Registrar of Births to remove his name from the minor’s birth record, arguing that he was not the biological father and that correcting the record was in the child’s best interest. He submitted the DNA report as evidence.
The court ruled the report “admissible, credible, and sufficient,” declaring that KZ “is not the biological father of the minor, BDK.”
It ordered the registrar to “delete, remove, strike out, and/or correct” his name from the official records.
Court records revealed that KZ had initially been registered as the father at the time of the child’s birth. He later signed a parental responsibility agreement in March 2024 after Ms CS demanded financial support for the child. The mother did not respond to the lawsuit or appear in court, leading the judge to verify whether she had been properly notified.
The court traced emails sent between May and September 2025, confirming that she had been served under the Civil Procedure Rules but chose not to participate.
The Registrar of Births and Deaths, represented by the Attorney General, stated that the original entry had been made correctly based on the parents’ information and KZ’s consent.
However, the office acknowledged it would comply with a court order confirming he was not the biological father.
With the registrar’s concession, the case hinged on the DNA evidence. The court dismissed concerns about privately obtained tests, noting the mother’s lack of objection. The report analyzed over 20 genetic markers, with no indication of tampering or forgery.
“The science of DNA profiling has revolutionised the adjudication of paternity disputes,” the court observed, emphasizing that courts should not rely on “archaic presumptions when scientific certainty is available.”
The ruling cited constitutional and statutory protections ensuring the right to correct false information and prioritizing a child’s best interests.
“It would be detrimental for the child to base his identity on incorrect paternity information,” the court concluded.
Ultimately, the court declared KZ not the biological father and ordered the registrar to amend the records.
