5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest. 6.  From January 2004 the applicant lived in a common-law marriage with Ms H.K. On 5 April 2004 it was confirmed that she was pregnant. On 1 September 2004 their cohabitation ended. 7.  On 26 November 2004 a Mr P. made a declaration of paternity in respect of the child to be born. The mother consented to this. 8.  On 4 January 2005 Ms H.K. gave birth to a girl. 9.  On 13 January 2005 Mr P.’s wife adopted the girl. This was endorsed by the Gyomaendrőd Custody Board. The mother consented to the adoption. 10.  When the applicant found out about this, on 20 January 2005 he requested the Pest County Administrative Office to appoint an ad hoc guardian for the baby so that he could file an action with a view to establishing his own paternity. The case was transferred to the Gyomaendrőd Custody Board. The Board refused to appoint a guardian, observing that the girl’s family situation was settled and it was not in her interest to have the issue of paternity tried in court. The applicant’s administrative appeal was to no avail. 11.  The applicant challenged these decisions in court. 12.  On 15 September 2005 the Békés County Regional Court held a hearing at which the applicant was heard as to his personal circumstances and his vision about raising the child.
On the same day, the court dismissed his action. It upheld the finding that it was not in the child’s interest to institute proceedings for challenging the fiction of paternity. The court pointed out that the applicant had also had the opportunity to make a declaration of paternity with the consent of the mother after the conception of the child. However, the paternity had meanwhile been acknowledged by Mr P. and the child had been adopted by Mrs P. Therefore, the child’s legal status was settled and, according to the evidence obtained by the custody authorities, including a home visit and interviews, she was being raised in a loving family atmosphere and it was not in her interest to be removed from that environment for the sole purpose of establishing the biological paternity by medical tests. The court added that if the fiction of paternity were successfully challenged, the ‘status of father’ would necessarily fall vacant, but the applicant’s declaration of paternity would not take full effect in the absence of the mother’s consent. Under those circumstances, the child would lose her settled family status.
The court added that had the custody board granted the applicant’s request, it would have committed a grave breach of the law, since this might have resulted in the child being deprived of her settled family status and her removal from the loving family atmosphere in which she was raised, whereas her best interest was to preserve her existing family relationships which in the long run could secure harmonious physical, mental and moral development. 13.  On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.
The Supreme Court endorsed the administrative authorities’ position that it was not in the interest of the child to call into question the paternity. While acknowledging the applicant’s argument about the significance for the child of getting to know her biological father, the Supreme Court insisted that the child’s interest was of paramount importance, observed that she was being brought up in a loving family with appropriate means and held that a lawsuit challenging the paternity was at that time not in her best interest. The Supreme Court noted that should the child herself wish at one point to bringing a case with a view to establishing biological paternity, she could do so once she reached fourteen years of age.