Paternity testing services are to be subject to government regulations amid concerns that misleading results have been given to parents and presented as evidence in court.

Solicitors are routinely using companies not accredited by the Ministry of Justice to carry out DNA tests for family law cases. A High Court judge has cast doubt on the reliability of such tests, raising concerns that some children may have been wrongly removed from their parents.

An estimated 10,000 paternity tests are carried out each year but The Times has discovered that many unaccredited services may be misleading customers by claiming to provide court-approved results.

The Department of Health has now produced recommendations for paternity DNA testing services, which set out standards required by those wanting to carry out official work.

All government and public bodies will be expected to use only paternity testing services that comply with the guidelines. They state that consent must be obtained from all parties before the tests are carried out, that verification details should be securely maintained and that all testing services must use a laboratory that meets international standards.

Just six laboratories are approved by the Government to carry out court-ordered paternity tests but a legal loophole allows solicitors to use unaccredited companies unless a judge makes a specific order.

Unaccredited testing companies are now being told not to use phrases such as “court-approved” in their promotional material and that they must make clear that privately ordered tests may not be admissible in court cases or for other official purposes.

Concern about the reliability of paternity tests has been raised after the High Court heard that one leading testing service lost vital details in 122 cases, which meant that the findings could not be relied upon.

DNA Diagnostics admitted that photographs of sample donors had been lost from case files containing the results of the tests, meaning that the link between the two could no longer be assured.

Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, lifted the secrecy rules surrounding family law cases to make a public judgment expressing his concern and to issue rules for testing companies.

“This is a company that has been widely instructed by the legal profession in whom members of the public and those who have parental responsibility for children have reposted a high degree of trust and confidence,” he said in the judgment.

He accused DNA Diagnostics of a systematic failure and said that “procedural and professional deficiencies that have been identified . . . would have made it quite impossible for any court to rely on its conclusions.”

DNA Diagnostics told the court that it had addressed the problems and was seeking accreditation.

Judge Hayden said that a second paternity testing service also provided confusing evidence in the case involving the welfare of eight children. Anglia DNA, which is on the government-approved list, reported that there was good evidence that two of the children were likely to be half-siblings. When a third company, Orchid Cellmark, was asked to repeat the tests it concluded that there was no likely relationship. Anglia DNA then confirmed the results from Orchid Cellmark and blamed unclear instructions from a lawyer for the confusion, saying that it had not been asked to consider the likelihood that the children had no relationship.

Judge Hayden said: “The experience of this hearing has been to underscore the need for greater clarity in relation to the terms of instruction to DNA experts and the need to ensure that suitably approved specialists are instructed.”

He ruled that DNA testing services should provide clear information about the meanings of their results in layman’s language and should provide details of all possible genetic relationships, not just those suggested by the instructing lawyers.

Mr Hayden concluded: “If ever a case illustrated the need for strict regulation and accreditation of those companies which undertake this work, this is the case.”

The Ministry of Justice had to remove half of the paternity testing services from its accredited list after a review in 2006 revealed that five did not have up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said: “We see no necessity to change the law as the civil courts already have the power to give a Section 20 direction [which will ensure a laboratory is chosen from the accredited list] as they see fit.”

Anthony Hayden, QC, sitting as deputy High Court judge in Re: F (Children) (DNA Evidence), said in his judgment: “DNA Diagnostics undertook work that it was not accredited to undertake. I have found that its unauthorised decision to take further samples from the children concerned was at best unethical and the company’s administrative procedures were seriously flawed. Though I emphasise again that whilst I make no criticisms of the DNA science employed by the company, the fact remains that in 120 cases it is impossible to make the crucial link between donor and sample.”

Explore Health

• Expert Advice

• Health Features

• Mental Health

• Alternative Medicine

• Child Health

• Health Club