Because both men have the same genetic material, current DNA tests cannot decipher which twin is the baby’s biological father.
But who will be the child’s father? A court in the United Kingdom has ruled that it is not possible to determine, with current technology, which of two identical twins is the father of a baby son of a woman who had sexual relations with both brothers.
The decision was made by the Court of Appeal in London following a dispute involving the child’s mother and two identical twin brothers with whom he had sex in a interval of just four daysduring the period in which conception occurred.
Initially, one of the brothers was registered as the father on the child’s birth certificate, identified in the process as “child P”. However, the mother and the other twin challenged this appointment in courtclaiming that there was insufficient evidence to determine which of the two was the real father and seeking to obtain legal recognition of parental responsibility.
According to , the case began in family court, where a judge refused to change the birth record. The decision led to an appeal to a higher court, where a panel of judges has now concluded that the paternity cannot be established for sure.
As explained in court, currently available DNA tests cannot distinguish between identical twinssince they share practically the same genetic material. Although there is a possibility that more advanced techniques will allow for this distinction in the future, the court considered that, for now, this is not feasible.
The judge Andrew McFarlane stated in the decision that the current “truth” about the child’s paternity is that the father is “one or the other of the two twins”, without it being possible to identify which one.
“It is possible, in fact, probable, that when P. reaches maturity, science will be able to identify one of the parents and exclude the other twin, but, for now, this cannot be done without a very high cost, and, therefore, your “truth” is binary and it does not refer to a single man”, he decided.
Despite this, the court determined that the man initially registered as the father will no longer have parental responsibility until further court decision. Even so, the judges refused to formally declare that he is not the father, emphasizing the difference between an unproven fact and proof of its contrary.
The case is expected to continue in court, pending uncertainty over the identity of the father.
