Newsroom
A man who denies he had a child 28 years ago with his lover and refuses to take a DNA test has lost his appeal case, with the court citing a “compelling sequence of events” that lead to no other reasonable conclusion.
According to daily Phileleftheros, a 28-year-old woman embarked on a mission a few years ago to force a man purported to be her father to officially recognise her as his biological daughter.
The man refused DNA testing which was ordered by a family court.
But the judge in the case at the lower court had ruled in favour of the daughter, basing the decision on a number of events despite lack of DNA evidence.
The lower court ruled that the refusal by the defendant to submit to a genetic test led to the conclusion that he was indeed the father
Specifically, the family court took into account a sequence of four events and ruled that the man could not have been anyone but the father. The judge established and accepted the event line that started with the news that the plaintiff’s mother was pregnant during the couple’s love affair, the suggestion at that time by the man to have an abortion, the refusal of the mother, and their final break up.
The lower court ruled that the refusal by the defendant to submit to a genetic test led to the conclusion that he was indeed the father.
But the man appealed the decision, telling an appeals judge recently that the woman’s brother was capable of bribing state officials to cause trouble. He also argued he had been discredited by the allegations, insisting he never had a love affair or sexual intercourse with the plaintiff during the critical period that she could get pregnant.
The man had argued that it would have been "inconceivable" that he could be the biological father of the woman's daughter.
But the appeals judge said if the man knew he was not the biological father, as he claimed, he ought to have been the one seeking the DNA test to clear his name.
While there can be no definitive proof other than DNA in such cases, the appeals court ruled that the man is indeed the father on the basis of the sequence of events that leads to no other reasonable conclusion.
