Mr Alain Berenboom, the legal advisor to King Albert II, said on Wednesday that the decision rendered in the Boël case by the Brussels Court of First Instance was consistent with the case law and doctrine in matters of filiation.
On Tuesday afternoon, the court declared the application for renouncement of the paternity of Jacques Boël, introduced by Delphine Boël, admissable but unfounded. This decision therefore prevents Delphine Boël from seeking recognition of the paternity of King Albert II, whom she claims to be her biological father.
Mr Berenboom commented on the court’s decision on Wednesday, following the press release sent by Delphine Boël’s legal advisor on Tuesday night.
“With regard to what has been said, I would like to point out that the decision is in accordance with the case law and doctrine in matters of filiation,” Albert II’s lawyer told Belga.
“The biological reality is not enough, and filiation is also assessed in the light of other factors, such as social factors, provision for the child, education, emotional ties, etc., the sole goal being that a family relationship is assured for any child”, commented the attorney.
On Tuesday evening, Delphine Boël’s attorneys deplored that the court also took no account of the scientific evidence that demonstrates that Jacques Boël is not the biological father of Delphine Boël, as well as the opinion of the latter, who did not contest the denial of paternity.
They also held that the Court did not take into account the Constitutional Court’s opinion on the principle of “possession of the state” nor the finding that two individuals behaved like a parent and child for many years.
The Court had held that a child over 22 years of age could still bring an action for paternity, even if her discovery that her mother’s husband was not her father had been made more than one year prior to this. The Court had justified this by the fact that it was necessary to grant an interest to the need of a person in pursuit of a filiation conformable to her origins.
The Court had stated that such an application was, at any rate, admissible in court. This was also stated by the Brussels Court of First Instance, which subsequently, however, held that it was unfounded in the present case.