David Blunkett paternity case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section needs to be updated. Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished. |
In November 2004, the then UK Home Secretary David Blunkett was reported to have started a paternity suit against a former lover, Kimberly Quinn.
Quinn, the American-born publisher of The Spectator magazine, claimed that the children 'belong' to her and her husband, Stephen Quinn, the publisher of British Vogue, and that she wanted to make her marriage work without interference from Blunkett. It was reported in newspapers on November 29 that Blunkett had discovered, using paternity testing, that he is the natural father of his former lover's two-year-old son, William. Newspapers reported that Mrs Quinn's husband believed that Blunkett was vindictive in wanting to have anything to do with the children, even if Blunkett was the natural father.
The interesting ethical question is whether it is better for the children to be brought up by a married couple, even if the husband turns out not to be their natural father, or whether it is better to allow a man with whom the mother once had an affair to remain involved in the children's lives, regardless of how that involvement might affect her present marriage.
The issue of paternity in the case of Blunkett may not have to be established. The case of K v M (Paternity: Contact) 1996 1 FLR 312, was one where the mother had had an extramarital affair but became reconciled with her husband, who could have been - and accepted himself as - the child's father. Irrespective of biological parentage, there was no prospect of the other man having contact and, accordingly, it was held not to be in the child's interests to determine the issue of paternity. One of the main intentions of marriage is to provide a stable environment for any children, and therefore the preservation of the marriage was viewed in this case to be better for the child than the preservation of a relationship based solely on biology.
Even if he is allowed to prove that he is the child's father, family law precedent in the UK would make it look likely that Blunkett will be unsuccessful in his quest to have a meaningful relationship with his children, unless he can show that there are special circumstances to this case to override this precedent. In the case of Re H (A Minor)(Parental responsibility), it is reported:
A father was refused contact with his 2-year-old son because the mother's new husband's objection to contact was such that the marriage and the child's welfare would be placed at risk. The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal.
On 15 December 2004, Blunkett resigned as Home Secretary. In an interview [1] the same day with the BBC, he indicated that he had been willing to sacrifice his political career to pursue his paternity claim in respect of his ex-lover's son. He said of his son:
He will want to know not just that his father actually cared enough about him to sacrifice his career, but he will want to know, I hope, that his mother has some regret.
