Status of children — children of out wedlock — paternity declaration — Status of Children Act 1969, ss 2A, 3, 4, 6, 6C & 10 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 50 & 51 — Administration Act 1969, s 77 — High Court Rules 2016, r 18 (b)(v) — Family Court Amendment Rules 2022, r 10 — Epidemic (Preparedness) Act 2006 — D v H FC Auckland, FAM 2003-004- 1811, 20 June 2006 — BR v RL HC Nelson CIV-2007-442, 12 March 2008 — Re I (1997) 15 FRNZ 525 — M v W CIV-2010-485-1588 — Hemmes v Young [2005] NZSC 47, [2006] 2 NZLR 1 — J v Family Court at Auckland [2020] NZFLR 870 — McGrath v Dalgety [2022] NZHC 2180, [2020] NZFLR 414 — Fletcher v Blackburn [Guardianship] [2009] NZFLR 354 (HC) — Prouse v Grieve [2016] NZFC 4970 — Pearce v Pearce [2012] NZCA 378, [2012] NZFLR 863 (CA) — Kirton v Herbison [2022] NZHC 3208. The applicant sought for a parental declaration that the respondent's father was also her father. The alleged father was married twice and had many children. The applicant's mother was employed by the alleged father. The main issue was whether on the balance of probabilities the respondent's father was also the applicant's father. The respondent had provided a sample of his DNA which established that there was a high probability that the parties were half siblings. Although a DNA test was not absolute proof for a paternity declaration, it was most likely that the standard of proof was met for a declaration. The applicant never had a relationship with the respondent's father. The Court concluded that the DNA results showed that there was a high level of certainty that the parties were half siblings and that they shared the same father. The appellant's inaction for a declaration was brought up by the respondent, since the applicant was 85 years old at the time of the filing and the respondent was critical of this. The applicant was not required to explain this; in any case the Court found the delay to be justified as the legal redress for children born out of wedlock was not available until 1970, when the applicant was already 34. The critique was rejected by the Court. There was no requirement to prove that there was a positive connection between the applicant and her father. The application was successful and the respondent's father was declared to be the applicant's father. Judgment Date: 10 August 2023.