S.+(E.A.)+c.+B.+(K.M.)

**Facts:** Respondent K.B. had formerly cohabitated with the applicant, and while cohabitating she became pregnant. They separated and she began a relationship with Mr. C who was present at the birth of the child in question (C.), and has acted as a father to it and her two children from a previous marriage as well. The applicant wishes to establish that he is the father of C., and to exercise visitation rights in keeping with that status. The respondent has refused to comply with the order for blood tests to establish the paternity of the Applicant. Both the respondent and Mr. C who is hoping to adopt C. join together to oppose his application. **Issue:** **(1)** Is the court entitled, pursuant to Sec 10(3) (now 10(4)) of the Children’s Law Reform Act to draw a reverse inference from the respondent’s failure to submit to blood tests, therefore confirming the paternity of the applicant? **(2)** In light of the facts, should the court grant the Applicant access rights? **Held:** (1) yes. (2) yes. **Reasoning:** //Question 1:// **Section 10(4)**: **Inference from refusal** **(4)** If a person named in an order under subsection **(1)** refuses to submit to the blood test or DNA test, the court may draw such inferences as it thinks appropriate. Also: **Section 8(1**): **Presumption of paternity** Unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities, there is a presumption that a male person is, and he shall be recognized in law to be, the father of a child in any one of the following circumstances: **(2)** The person was married to the mother of the child by a marriage that was terminated by death or judgment of nullity within 300 days before the birth of the child or by divorce where the decree //nisi// was granted within 300 days before the birth of the child. The court found that given the timing, that on the BOP the applicant is the biological father of the child. //Question 2:// “The mere fact of parenthood does not //ipso facto// confer such rights.” Applications for access must be determined in the best interests of the child. (s.24 CLRA) Considered cases where contact might be detrimental, found not to apply given the circumstances. Court foresaw no “detriment to the child by the establishment of a relationship.” Given the already successfully blended family situation, Court was confident of successful intergration of the applicant as child’s biological father with supervision and support of a professional child and family counselor.
 * S. (E.A.) v. B.(K.M.) [Ont] 1989:**