Woman is ordered to take DNA test in court fight over man’s estate

AWOMAN has been ordered to submit to DNA testing to prove she is the daughter of an Royton man who died without making a will.

Colin Wilson Birtles’ death in June 2013 has sparked a court battle between the two women he brought up as his daughters.

In an unprecedented case, Janice Nield-Moir is insisting Lorraine Karen Freeman is not Mr Birtles’ daughter and is due nothing from his estate as a result.

The case was heard in front of the High Court sitting in Bristol.

Judge Paul Matthews ordered Mrs Freeman to give a saliva sample for analysis.

The judge said it wasn’t suggested that Mrs Freeman should be ‘forced’ to undergo the test.

But he said when it comes to a judge resolving the row over Mr Birtles’ estate between the two, it could be held against her if she still refuses.

Judge Matthews said: “This sad litigation should be brought to conclusion, one way or the other, as soon as practicable. If science can help, then it should.”

Mrs Nield-Moir, who has lived in Australia since 2007, and Mrs Freeman, both aged in their 50s, are daughters of Veronica Birtles, who is also dead, the court heard.

Mr Birtles, who lived on Lily Street, Royton, divorced their mother in 1977 and brought them up as his own.

Bringing a civil action, claimant Mrs Nield-Moir alleges defendant Mrs Freeman ‘told a number of persons during her life’ that she isn’t his biological child.

Mrs Freeman, however, claims it’s ‘nothing but gossip and hearsay’ and has refused to submit to DNA testing, the court was told.

She argues the fact Mr Birtles is named as her father on her birth certificate, and he was married to her mother when she was born, is enough to prove that she is his natural child.

A saliva test, Mrs Free- man also claims, could not in any case provide ‘definitive’ proof that she and Mrs Nield-Moir are full sisters.

Mr Birtles’ estate would go to his next-of-kin. Mrs Freeman’s barrister, Julie Case, said making her undergo the test would be an ‘invasion of her bodily integrity’ and ‘violate her human rights’.

But accepting there was no precedent, Judge Matthews said: “I do not see why, in principle, a person cannot be ordered to consent to a mouth saliva swab test for DNA testing purposes.”

He said a test would be ‘quick, painless and risk free’ and was less invasive than a blood test.

But rejecting claims that it would breach her human right to respect for her family life and privacy, the judge added: “The truth is important here.

“I hold that the inherent jurisdiction of the court extends to directing that a party to proceedings give a saliva sample by way of mouth swab for the purpose of establishing paternity in a case where paternity is in issue.”

Mrs Freeman was given 28 days in which to make an appointment with an appointed forensic genetics specialist to undergo the test.