Very much as the title, I'm not too sure if Genealogy is entirely the right board though? The judgment in the case was handed down last Friday
The Ancestry DNA wasn't used in court to prove he was the father, but rather to identify who the father might be so that he could be required to provide a DNA sample.
.
So, briefly, the British Army has a training base in Kenya. A number of local women have claimed that British servicemen were the fathers of their children.
A genetics professor from Kings College London and a team from the BBC went to Kenya and took saliva samples from 23 children. One of the samples from each child was then sent to Ancestry and the other was retained by the genetics professor for testing if a potential father was found.
They then started looking through Ancestry and, in this case, found relatives of the possible father on Ancestry. From this they were able to identify who the father likely was.
The father turned out to have been in the army and in Kenya at the correct time. He was also of Kenyan heritage and had extended family in Kenya who he visited regularly.
He agreed to do a court ordered DNA test at Kings College London and this showed that he was indeed the father.
He claimed that he had never met the mother (until the court was shown a photo of them together) and then tried to dispute the DNA evidence.
But, in the end, the court ruled that he was the father.
Re YZ (Declaration of Parentage: BATUK: DNA Evidence) [2026] EWHC 1601 (Fam)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2026/1601.html
Apparently, the other cases are still ongoing.