The Facts of the Case
The case concerned a 4 year old child, MA born in 2020. At the time of the birth her mother, BA, was in a relationship with KL, and he believed himself to be her father. Shortly after MA’s birth they registered the birth together and KL was named on the birth certificate as her father.
However, when the relationship broke down MA raised doubts about paternity and DNA testing subsequently established that KL was not the biological father. KL had played a significant role in MA’s life and after the end of the relationship he had regular contact with including weekend stays until her mother stopped this.
He wanted to continue his relationship with MA and retain parental responsibility for her. He applied for a parental responsibility order to secure his rights if BA sought to remove them. Meanwhile, BA sought a declaration of non-parentage, arguing that KL’s parental responsibility should be void from the outset.
The Judge made a declaration of non-parentage which was not opposed. The complex legal issues surrounding KL’s parental responsibility were reserved.
Background Law
Under Section 3 of the Children Act 1989 , parental responsibility is defined as the rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities that a parent has concerning a child. It includes decisions about education, medical treatment, and religious upbringing.
A child’s mother automatically has parental responsibility which cannot be removed. Under Section 2 a man married to the mother at the time of the birth automatically has parental responsibility.
Section 4 deals with unmarried fathers gaining parental responsibility. An unmarried father can obtain parental responsibility by an Order of the Court or by a parental responsibility agreement with the mother.
The third way for a father to acquire parental responsibility is by being registered on the birth certificate. This was not part of the original Children Act 1989; it was added as one of the amendments made under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Parental responsibility is acquired by the simple act of a joint signing of the Register by the mother and putative father, without proof of paternity.
The law contains penalties for perjury, against deliberate misstatements on a birth certificate, but no safeguards against honest mistake. Realistically there have always been errors as to paternity on the birth register arising from mistakes made in good faith, as well as some errors made from misstatements not made in good faith.
Legal Issues
The Court had to decide whether KL’s registration as her father on ML’s birth certificate gave him parental responsibility and whether this was void ab initio following the DNA results.
Ms Debra Powell KC sitting as a High Court Judge carefully went through the statutory framework and previous case law to decide upon the legal status of KL’s parental responsibility.
The Decision
Deputy Judge Powell ruled that KL was not eligible to register MA’s birth with her mother and thereby acquire parental responsibility as he was not her biological and legal father even though he thought he was.
The Court applied the natural and ordinary meaning of s4(1)(a) Children Act 1989 that only a biological or legal father can acquire parental responsibility by being named on the child’s birth certificate. The Court of Appeal case of P v Q and F (Child: Legal Parentage) [2024] EWCA Civ 878 states that the registration of the birth is simply evidence of parentage and where an issue arises about parentage it must be determined by the Court.
The Judge went on to rule that KL did not acquire parental responsibility under s4(1)(a) Children Act 1989 when he was mistakenly registered as MA’s father on her birth certificate. He therefore never held parental responsibility. It was void ab initio. Therefore, no order is required under s4(2A) Children Act 1989 to remove parental responsibility from him.
Implications for the Future
This case has significant implications for cases involving mistaken paternity. It clarifies that only biological or legal fathers can acquire parental responsibility through birth registration.
It shows the importance of accurate birth registration and the legal complexities that can arise from errors.
The case demonstrates the need for the Courts to balance the biological foundations of parental responsibility and the emotional bonds between children and non-biological parents. The Judge acknowledged the important relationship between KL and MA but the law prioritised the clarity and intention of the statutory framework.
This case demonstrates the need for Lawyers to approach disputes involving parental responsibility with meticulous attention to legal principles and family dynamics.
It will be a crucial reference for future disputes involving non-parentage declarations and the acquisition of parental responsibility.
Next Steps regarding Parental Responsibility...
If you have questions about parental responsibility or any other matters relating to a child, please contact one of our team on freephone 0800 011 6666 or visit the family law section of our website.
