Facts
The son B.B., born in 2011, is the child of C.B., who was married at the time of his birth. The paternity of the husband was eliminated by a final judgment of the District Court of Brig dated February 10, 2015. In the contestation proceedings, the child's mother A. had named B. as the biological father, who was unsuccessfully summoned as a witness several times for a paternity assessment.
On February 9, 2016, B.B. filed a paternity and maintenance claim against A. The proceedings were limited to the determination of the child's relationship, and the procurement of a DNA expert opinion was announced. A. declared that he would resist an assessment. The District Court of Brig ordered a buccal swab from A. to conduct the DNA expert opinion and instructed the cantonal police to carry out the swab in case of refusal. A. filed a complaint against this, which the Cantonal Court of Valais dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the claimant party must prove the fact of paternity. However, paternity is presumed if the defendant cohabited with the mother during the critical period. If the proof of cohabitation fails or if the defendant is able to rebut the presumption of paternity, the claimant party must provide direct proof using scientific methods.
The DNA expert opinion is not the only means of proof for the establishment or exclusion of paternity, but it is the means of proof of choice. The appellant does not invoke any exceptional circumstances that would render the…