The paternity declaration was made in August last year but was released publicly by the Family Court this week.
It explains how another of Tarr’s siblings objected to the declaration being made on the grounds that her father, Daniel Rogers, died in 1972 and it was simply too late to establish any familial connection.
According to the judgement, Rogers’ first wife bore him seven children and died while giving birth. Two of their children are still alive today.
When Rogers remarried in 1938 he also employed a housekeeper called Elizabeth Clarkin, who gave birth to a daughter she named Colleen Tarr.
Tarr was born in 1936 and on her 18th birthday, her aunt told her who her real father was.
However, during his lifetime she had no relationship with him and never discussed her parentage with her mother.
As an adult, she knew where Rogers lived after she found his name in the telephone book, but had never had the courage to connect with him, nor anyone else in the family.
Around 2021 a friend helped Tarr conduct a do-it-yourself genealogy test which can be purchased from and then uploaded to Ancestry.com which then matches the results to other potential family members.
After uploading her results she was invited to a family gathering in 2021 by Mick Rogers, the youngest surviving son of Daniel Rogers and his first wife, and she described the meeting as very successful.
Later, another of her half-brothers, Peter Rogers, visited her and told her that their brother Frank had passed away without a will in 2020.
Under the Status of Children Act if the executor of a person’s will is aware of any potential claimants who have not established paternity then they must tell them they have the right to seek to legitimise that relationship through the courts.
Both Peter and Mick provided DNA samples which indicated Tarr was 245,000 times more likely to be their sibling than not.
However, Frank’s sister, Frances Cotter, opposed Tarr being named as a half-sibling but died while court proceedings were still underway.
Cotter’s lawyer, Neville Woods, argued on his client’s behalf that Rogers had been dead more than 52 years and labelled the delay “unparalleled.”
Woods also submitted that there was no evidence presented to establish the alleged sexual relationship between Tarr’s mother and Daniel Rogers as well as comparisons of their physical appearance nor any DNA from the man himself.
Woods said that because there was no actual relationship, in the form of love, affection, acknowledgement, maintenance or any social or moral connection whatsoever and Tarr confirmed that herself in court.
However, Judge Belinda Pidwell said that Woods’ interpretation of the law was “draconian” and that the Status of Children Act was designed to eliminate social stigma.
“If a child seeking to establish paternity had to establish a connection or bond with the putative father to succeed, irrespective of a biological link, then fathers could defend such applications by simply walking away from their offspring,” she said.
“Declarations of paternity are emotional and pierce the very core of a person’s identity, their sense of belonging, their whakapapa.”
Judge Pidwell said that the case had been triggered in part by the executor’s obligations under the act as well as Tarr’s need to establish her identity and whakapapa in her twilight years.
In evidence, Tarr spoke of how she felt living her life with the social stigma of being born out of wedlock, which in the 1940s was considered scandalous.
“... I had a desire all my life. What would you have done? Your pride and rejection. You’re frightened of both of them. Which is proven now by rejection, what’s happening now; rejection,” Tarr said in her evidence to the court.
Judge Pidwell noted that the Status of Children Act was not passed into law until 1969, when Tarr was 34 years of age. Until that law was passed she had no legal redress as a child born out of wedlock and paternity testing didn’t become available until the 1980s.
“How can an adult be criticised for inaction when there is no legal recourse for half of her lifetime?” Judge Pidwell said in her ruling.
“Colleen was naturally curious all her life, but felt unable to take any legal steps due to the constraints of the times.”
Judge Pidwell said that the only reasonable interpretation from the DNA evidence, as well as birth certificates provided by her half-brothers, was that Tarr was Daniel Rogers’ natural daughter and made a paternity order confirming it.
The Family Court could not rule on whether the paternity enhanced her inheritance claim on Frank Rogers’ estate and Tarr has since died.
The daughter and a representative of Frances Cotter, who opposed Tarr’s paternity declaration, told NZME in a statement through their counsel that they felt obligated to oppose the claim.
“We felt it right to fairly place before the Court the moral hazard in a claim long delayed, against a father who died long ago, when the Applicant had lived her life nearby but chose not to seek him out or speak to him when he lived,” their statement reads.
“The Applicant [Tarr] relied on the DNA of half-siblings, without DNA volunteered by either her mother or father. The Applicant succeeded in the case, and in doing so gained the fruits of a large inheritance.
“Sadly, [Frances Cotter] passed away before the case was heard, and so was deprived of the chance to have her say directly in her own words to the Court. We are grateful to the Court for having made its decision.”
Family lawyer, member of the Lawyer for Child panel and King’s Counsel Vivienne Crawshaw said the judgment was an unusual one because of the amount of time since Tarr’s father had died.
“I do wonder if with the advent of DNA-sharing we will see some really interesting consequences and outcomes with children born out of wedlock,” she said.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t the only case of its kind.”
Crawshaw said that it was clear the triggering event for the paternity declaration was from the Status of Children Act and it was nice to see her half-brothers being helpful in sharing their DNA and helping her confirm her lineage.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
