Why Mandatory DNA Testing of New borns to Establish Paternity Is a Bad Idea

An Article Published published in The Namibian (Harmony Muyenga, ‘Namibia Needs to Introduce Mandatory DNA Testing at Birth’, 27 January 2026) advocated mandatory DNA testing of all newborns to establish paternity.

Proponents of mandatory paternity testing assert it would combat false or mistaken attributions of fatherhood as well as address the problem of fathers who refuse to acknowledge paternity and accept the responsibilities of parenthood.

It is also argued that establishing paternity scientifically at the time of birth would prevent future debates about paternity in the context of issues such as maintenance, custody or inheritance.

Some argue such tests would benefit children who have a constitutional right, “subject to legislation enacted in the best interests of children”, to know and be cared for by their parents.

Certainty about paternity might also be the basis for medical history information that might be useful to the child. 

On the other hand, there are strong arguments against mandatory DNA testing of newborns to establish paternity. 

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Importantly, mandatory testing of all newborns might violate the Namibian Constitution.
Firstly, it raises issues of equality.

Paternity testing can expose the sexual history and practices of the mother without revealing any information about the father’s sexual practices. This disadvantages women in comparison to men. 

Secondly, mandatory testing interferes with the privacy of individuals and families who should be able to decide what they want to know and when they want the information.

For instances, families who used artificial reproductive techniques with donor sperm or mothers who fall pregnant through rape or incest might want to decide if and when to share this information with their family members – rather than being forced into disclosure immediately after childbirth. 

Several court cases in both Namibia and South Africa have found that ordering paternity tests might not always be in a child’s best interests.

They note that courts should be wary of approving enquiries into paternity that might destroy an otherwise loving and caring parent-child relationship, particularly where there is no actual dispute within the family. 

Another major concern is cost.

Blanket DNA testing imposed by law would presumably have to be paid for by the government.

This would be expensive.
Surely it would be in the best interests of children to spend that taxpayer money on child maintenance grants, education or other services for children. 

VIOLENCE AND FALL-OUTS

Mandatory paternity testing at birth could provoke gender-based violence by revealing extramarital affairs or rapes at a time when the mother is vulnerable, with no opportunity to prepare for such revelations.

It could lead to emotional turmoil, threats, and verbal or physical abuse against the mother – and anger about an unexpected outcome might even be directed against the newborn child.

It would be better to allow families to reveal information in their own time, or to request paternity testing for specific purposes when the rights of the mother, father or child are implicated. 

One small Namibian study published in 2023, based on 10 interviews with key informants in Namibia, reported that all those interviewed believe mandatory DNA testing would lead to increased gender-based violence and even the murder of women, by exposing infidelity (but only infidelity by women).

Some felt that fear of DNA test results might cause some women to seek illegal abortions, and most thought mandatory DNA testing was likely to precipitate family break-ups.

All respondents thought it would be detrimental to children’s emotional well-being. 

TOO MUCH AND TOO LITTLE 

Paradoxically, DNA tests can reveal both too much and too little.

On the one hand, they can reveal much more information than paternity.

If DNA samples were collected for mandatory DNA testing, would there be rules prohibiting their future use to extract other information?
How would samples and test results be securely stored? Would they be made available to law enforcement officials for identifying criminals where DNA was collected from a crime scene? 

On the other hand, excluding paternity would not necessarily identify a child’s father.

If a specific man’s DNA is tested against a newborn’s DNA, the test can prove that the man in question is or is not the child’s father.

But, absent a comprehensive database of all Namibian men, the proposed testing cannot identify the child’s father.

This creates a huge potential for uncertainty, and possibly even abuse of the mother to force her to reveal information about her sexual partners. 

EXISTING LAWS

Namibian law already has balanced legal mechanisms to establish paternity in the context of maintenance or when it would serve a child’s best interests. 

The Child Care and Protection Act has an accessible procedure for proof of parentage.

Proceedings to establish parentage may be brought by a parent, a possible parent, the child’s primary caretaker, the person whose parentage is in question (including a child with sufficient maturity or a person who has reached adulthood), or someone such as a social worker authorised to act on behalf of a child. 

This might be done to establish paternity for purposes of maintenance, to ascertain who should be listed as parents on the birth certificate (which could affect the child’s citizenship) or to establish the right to list a child on a medical aid scheme or the child’s right to inherit from a particular person.

A parent may wish to establish a child’s parentage to support an application for custody, guardianship or access, or to establish a right to be notified of an intention to give the child up for adoption.

In some cases, establishing paternity might give the child a better sense of his or her identity or cultural heritage or serve as a step toward contact with extended family members. 

The High Court has the power to order that scientific testing take place over the objections of the other parent if it would be in the child’s best interests. 

The person disputing parentage must normally pay for the DNA test, but a court may order that the costs be paid partly or totally by the other party to the dispute or by the state.

The Maintenance Act has similarly detailed provisions on scientific tests. 

The current framework could be improved: by meshing procedures for proof of parentage in the various laws and by the addition of mechanisms to address fraud in respect of parentage.

There is also a need for more public education on the existing legal provisions and how to access them. 

No laws on mandatory paternity testing of newborns have been located anywhere in the world.

Hospitals in a few countries, notably the United States, carry out limited genetic health screening of all newborns to identify certain disorders that can best be treated with immediate interventions.

However, even this kind of DNA testing raises privacy and consent concerns. 

THE MEANING OF FATHERHOOD 

A focus on DNA testing risks reducing fatherhood to a biological connection, ignoring the importance of social and emotional connections.

Instances where children are conceived with the help of donor sperm or raised by adoptive parents or step-parents are the most obvious examples, but there are many situations where strong and healthy family bonds are formed without biological links.

This supports the idea that DNA testing to prove paternity should be approached on a case-by-case basis, for specific purposes – as under Namibia’s existing laws – instead of being imposed across the board without consideration of family situations and the wishes of those affected. 

• Dianne Hubbard is a legal consultant with many years of experience in public interest law and a passion for trying to make legal issues clear and accessible.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.