DNA test to qualify for a bequest?

thorsoak

I'm not sure about this, but a friend has asked if it is legal to ask for a prospective beneficiary to take a DNA test before receiving a bequest?    Apparently his son had a short relationship with a girl about 22 years ago and it fizzled out.   Nine months later, he had a telephone call from the girl, telling him that he had a son - and despite not knowing anything about the pregnancy and without telling his family he immediately went with her to register the baby - then told his family!    My friend and his wife were gobsmacked - but said that they would support him.    They saw the baby once, then the girl took the baby and went back to her family home in Ireland - and their son told them that she didn't want to stay in touch.    Son was told that he was not expected to support the baby, but he had his name.   

Friend has apparently kept an eye on the lad over the years and thinks that his son has not behaved as he would have done, and now he is looking at amending his will - his three children have all done fairly well for themselves and he has decided that he will leave his children various bits and pieces but wishes the bulk of his savings (if there is anything left if he has to go into care) to his grandchildren and is talking about including this young man if he has a dna test to prove who that the son is in fact his biological father.   

He has asked me and a couple of friends what we think and is it legal - I'm not sure what I think about it - I know at the time that his wife didn't think that the child was her son's child and that he had just been used to give the child a name - but it seems to me that either my friend should accept him as a grandson (he has three other grandsons and two granddaughters) and include him, or leave him out completely - but neither option really sits well with me.    Your observations will be passed on to him.

unforeseen

I think it's too late now. He legally became the father when he voluntarily agreed to be named on the birth certificate. Before doing that was the point that he should have asked for a DNA test.

DNA tests only prove a biological link. That link would be missing in couples who had children via AID. However the male partner is still legally the father if he is named on the birth certificate. My children have no biological link to me for this reason but they are still my children as I am registered as their father on the birth certificates. 

thorsoak

unforeseen said:

I think it's too late now. He legally became the father when he voluntarily agreed to be named on the birth certificate. Before doing that was the point that he should have asked for a DNA test.

DNA tests only prove a biological link. That link would be missing in couples who had children via AID. However the male partner is still legally the father if he is named on the birth certificate. My children have no biological link to me for this reason but they are still my children as I am registered as their father on the birth certificates. 

Good point!

theoretica

Seems to me to be a definite risk of the estate being taken up in legal fees - which benefits no one but the lawyers - and a potentially horrible pressure to put on the young man who may not want to find out. 

I would suggest the will is written based only on knowledge now, and with thoughts to how the family members, and especially the father of this grandchild, will feel.

elsien

His son is now an adult. Presumably despite knowing who his father is, he’s chosen not to contact him to build any sort of relationship. 

On that basis, I would think he has no expectations from his father as he’s had nothing from him all his life. He had not been any sort of father in the real sense of the word. 

Added to that, what do you think the impact on the son will be of this complete stranger turning up and demanding tests before deciding if he’s worthy of anything? If it was me, I’d be telling him to do one.

Your friend needs to look on this person as his biological son, as he has done for the last 22years, then make a judgement about any bequests on the basis of the bigger picture and what obligations he may or may not feel that he has. It’s his money, he can do what he likes with it, but he shouldn’t go messing with people’s heads along the way. 

Manxman_in_exile

elsien said:

His son is now an adult. Presumably despite knowing who his father is, he’s chosen not to contact him to build any sort of relationship. 

On that basis, I would think he has no expectations from his father as he’s had nothing from him all his life. He had not been any sort of father in the real sense of the word. 

Added to that, what do you think the impact on the son will be of this complete stranger turning up and demanding tests before deciding if he’s worthy of anything? If it was me, I’d be telling him to do one.

Your friend needs to look on this person as his biological son, as he has done for the last 22years, then make a judgement about any bequests on the basis of the bigger picture and what obligations he may or may not feel that he has. It’s his money, he can do what he likes with it, but he shouldn’t go messing with people’s heads along the way. 

Just to clarify - the OP's friend who is considering changing their will is the grandfather of the potential beneficiary in question and not the father.  Also it would appear that the grandparents have only ever seen the grandson once in 22 years!  (Not sure if that makes a great deal of difference to elsien's argumant but it does make the relationship twice more remote than father and son).

There is no legally or morally right or wrong answer to this question.  Either the grandfather wants to leave a legacy to this particular "grandchild" or they don't.  I honestly don't see the point of making a DNA test a condition of any bequest, but I'm one of those people who don't consider blood relationships to be more important than everything else.  Why would you want to leave anything to someone you've only ever seen once as (I presume) a baby, whether they are related to you or not?

Having said that, I can't see any reason why the OP's friend couldn't make any bequest to this particular "grandchild" conditional on a DNA test.  Surely the friend could legally leave bequests to all his grandchildren except xxx, so why couldn't they make a DNA test a condition?  What difference does it make whether the friend's son's name is on the birth certificate or not?

The "correct" answer is for the friend to get legal advice - isn't it?

unforeseen

What difference does it make whether the friend's son's name is on the birth certificate or not?

From a legal perspective quite a lot. He is his son's legal offspring regardless of any DNA test. As has been said, following the DNA route has the potential to completely wipe out the estate with legal fees. 

theoretica

My family had a bequest left to all descendents but one - seems pretty reasonable to me, the will writer said he was leaving money to people he knew and loved and not to a baby he had never met.

RAS

My understanding is that the grandson could be entitled to inherit from the man who put his name on his birth certificate, regardless of the biological relationship, certainly if that man dies intestate. Which could impact on any other children.

This isn't the Stichill baronetcy, but I suspect that the grandfather is entitled to leave nothing to the lad, or to leave an inheritance with or without conditions.

He really needs to start by talking to a good lawyer to understand the legal consequences of each option.

Manxman_in_exile

unforeseen said:

What difference does it make whether the friend's son's name is on the birth certificate or not?

From a legal perspective quite a lot. He is his son's legal offspring regardless of any DNA test. As has been said, following the DNA route has the potential to completely wipe out the estate with legal fees. 

How?  The OP's friend isn't going to die intestate, he's talking about changing his will.  If the friend decides to leave bequests to all his grandchildren except this grandchild, what can happen?  The grandparents have only ever seen this "grandchild" once in 22 years and have had no other contact whatsoever with him.

Are you suggesting that the grandchild would have some sort of claim against the grandfather as a dependant of the grandfather?

thorsoak said:

...   They saw the baby once, then the girl took the baby and went back to her family home in Ireland - and their son told them that she didn't want to stay in touch.    Son was told that he was not expected to support the baby, but he had his name.   
...

If the grandfather chooses to leave nothing to this particular adult grandchild I can't see any basis for a claim from what the OP has told us, regardless of who is named as father on the birth certificate.

Of course - as I've already said - the OP should get professional legal advice and not necessarily believe what they read on forums...

unforeseen

He is free NOT to leave anything to the grandson but making a bequest subject to a DNA test is a different kettle of fish.