December 4, 2004
The Times
DAVID BLUNKETT yesterday won the first round of a court battle with his pregnant former lover over access to her two-year-old son.
Kimberly Quinn, who is 28 weeks pregnant, had claimed her physical and mental health were at “significant risk” after Mr Blunkett applied for a contact order over the boy, William, whom he believes he fathered.
But a High Court judge dismissed Mrs Quinn’s call for a delay until her second child is born and allowed the case in the Family Division to go ahead. Mr Justice Ryder said that the court must secure the rights of the existing child in a decision that appears to pave the way for court-ordered scientific tests to establish paternity.
Mr Blunkett’s struggle for access has been pursued through the family courts for the past three weeks. Although some speculation about the legal wrangle has been published, the true details have until now been protected by the cloak of privacy usually drawn around such proceedings.
The judge sought to correct misleading media reports, emphasising that Mr Blunkett had never sought custody, nor had the Home Secretary or Mrs Quinn requested scientific paternity tests.
Mr Blunkett had spent two hours in court on Thursday when Mrs Quinn was too unwell to attend. The judge said that the parties had to wait for an opportunity to be heard on a “very busy list. They have had to be interrupted by more urgent matters during the course of the day. They have not been fast-tracked.” Mr Justice Ryder said that this case concerned “a young boy whose identity is known in the public arena but to whom I shall refer as ‘A’”.
Mr Blunkett, describing himself in documents as the child’s father, had applied to the courts for contact and a parental responsibility order under the Children Act 1989.
Mrs Quinn did not accept that Mr Blunkett was the child’s father. If she was right, Mr Blunkett could not, without the permission of the court, apply for contact, and his application for a parental responsibility order would be fatally flawed. Mrs Quinn had applied for an adjournment until next April but this had been rejected by Senior District Judge Waller.
In her appeal, she said that she would be unable to get a fair trial because she could not issue instructions and her health was at serious risk. Any harm to her would jeopardise the child’s welfare.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary had argued that delay “will be deeply damaging to the relationship between Mr Blunkett and A which was severed on any basis in August”.
Judge Waller had concluded that the child’s interest was to have his parentage determined at the earliest opportunity. To adjourn to April ran “the risk of determining the (contact) application by default, simply by lapse of time”.
Judge Waller identified paternity as the first issue. He said that it would be in the interests of the child and both parties if neither adult had to apply for scientific tests but the court “of its own motion” considered directions for them.
Refusing the appeal, Mr Justice Ryder noted that Mrs Quinn had been able to take a good part in proceedings until days if not hours beforehand. “In particular, she gave firm instructions in relation to paternity,” he said. “Delay would be damaging to the relationship between Mr Blunkett and A.”
The judge justified his unusual decision to throw open the normally closed doors of the family courts, saying that he had been “invited” to give judgment publicly “so that the record in respect of some factual issues may be set straight and so that the public might have confidence that the system of family justice is fair and is not wrongly cloaked in unnecessary or inappropriate secrecy.”
The judge finished by saying: “This case concerns a child. Neither party asks this court for protection from public comment but A is entitled to enjoy his private and family life. I very much hope that media attention can now avoid A’s circumstances. Even public figures are entitled to the civilised courtesies of being ordinary citizens in the conduct of their private and family lives.”
Outside court, Huw Evans, the Home Secretary’s special adviser, gave out photocopies of Mr Blunkett’s statement, which read: “I’m naturally relieved at today’s judgment so I can continue my attempts to gain access to my son William.
“I have never wanted anything about my private life and William’s paternity to be in the public domain and would never have gone to the courts if there were another way of getting informal access to him. I still hope this may be possible as I have not seen William since August. As forthcoming court hearings will be held in private I will not be commenting further on these personal matters.”
Mr Evans briefed reporters. “You see on his statement that David refers to ‘my son William’. That is his belief,” he said.
