Search of Ancestry.com’s database led Kathleen McFetridge to question a 2009 Maori Land Court decision recording Whenuariri Tapsell as a child of her grandfather and with that his right to part-ownership of her grandfather’s customary Maori land holdings near Rotorua, land over which she has rights of inheritance.
This incorrect record has affected subsequent generations by leaving them with a smaller interest in the land than they are beneficially entitled to, she says.
Maori custom requires communally-owned Maori land to be handed down to the next generation. A register of the ever-multiplying individual owners each with an ever-decreasing share of their forebears’ customary land is maintained by the Maori Land Court.
The court was told a 1996 Maori Land Court hearing saw customary land holdings of Taa Tapsell divided between six children on his death.
At a further hearing in 2009, the court added a seventh child to the list, diluting the ownership interests of the earlier listed six children. This addition was a son of Taa Tapsell named Whenuarari Tapsell. The application was made by Whenuariri’s son, Thomas, who in turn became a part-owner with Whenuarari’s death.
Ms McFetridge told the Maori Land Court that she had her DNA analysed by Ancestry.com. Finding that the DNA analysis from a descendant of Whenuariri was also publicly available, she asked for a match.
The match indicated the two are likely distant cousins who share great-great-great-grandparents.
This is clear proof that Whenuariri was not a child of Taa Tapsell, as accepted by the court in 2009, she said.
New Zealand courts do not accept data matches on Ancestry.com as proof of descent. There is no scientific rigour in either the manner in which DNA samples are taken or the way samples are analysed.
Ancestry.com’s website states its published information is not to be used in any judicial proceedings.
In the Maori Land Court, Chief Judge Fox ordered the 2009 decision to admit Whenuariri as a descendant be re-opened.
The decision itself was flawed; an error in court administrative procedure meant not all affected descendants were given notice of the 2009 application. They were not given a chance to challenge the assertion that Whenuariri was a child of Taa Tapsell.
Judge Fox instructed court staff to arrange for a reputable testing service to obtain a DNA sample from Whenuariri’s son Thomas and to report back in three months with the result.
Thomas is not obliged to provide a sample.
Judge Fox indicated any failure to provide a sample will lead to the inference that Thomas’ father is not descended from Taa Tapsell.
McFetridge v. Tapsell – Maori Land Court (11.02.25)
25.063