Court clarifies ‘parental responsibility’ for fathers named on birth certificates

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a man wrongly named as a child’s father on a birth certificate does not automatically gain parental responsibility if he is not the child’s biological father.

Amy Fallows Senior Associate Solicitor & Head of our Family Law team provides an update.

In an important judgment dealing with three separate family law appeals, senior judges said the legal meaning of “father” under the Children Act 1989 is limited to a child’s biological or genetic father unless Parliament has specifically provided otherwise.

The ruling means that even where a man genuinely believed he was a child’s father, was named on the birth certificate, and helped raise the child, he may never have acquired parental responsibility in law if later evidence shows he was not the biological father.

However, the court also stressed that this does not mean non-biological fathers can never obtain parental responsibility. The judgment only applies to the automatic right that normally arises when a biological father is registered on a child’s birth certificate.

Judges said non-biological parents who play an important role in a child’s life may still obtain parental responsibility through other legal routes, including child arrangements orders made by the family courts. The court referred to the role of “psychological” or “social” parents and made clear that such relationships can still receive legal recognition.

The appeals involved three very different family disputes, all raising questions about parental responsibility and legal fatherhood.

In the first case, a man believed he was the father of a child born in 2020 and was registered on the birth certificate. Two years later, after the parents’ relationship had ended, DNA testing showed another man was the biological father. Despite continuing to see himself as the child’s parent and seeking to remain involved in the child’s life, the Court of Appeal ruled he had never legally acquired parental responsibility through birth registration.

The second case involved a couple who had conceived a child using donor sperm purchased online rather than through a licensed fertility clinic. The man was named on the child’s birth certificate and acted as the child’s father, but DNA testing later confirmed he was not biologically related to the child. Again, the court held that he had not obtained parental responsibility automatically through birth registration alone.

The third case involved an unusual dispute between identical twin brothers. DNA evidence showed that one of the twins was the biological father of a child, but science could not determine which twin it was. One twin had been named on the birth certificate, but the court ruled that neither man could prove paternity on the balance of probabilities.

Giving the leading judgment, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said a person only acquires parental responsibility automatically through birth registration if two conditions are met: they must be the child’s biological father and they must be registered as the father on the birth certificate.

The court rejected arguments that parental responsibility continued unless formally removed by a court order. Instead, the judges concluded that where a person was not the biological father, parental responsibility “never arose in the first place”.

The judgment also highlighted concerns about a possible “abduction gap” in international child cases. The court noted that a person who wrongly believed they had parental responsibility might later discover they did not have the legal rights needed to challenge a child being taken abroad.

For more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law please contact Amy on 01228 516666 or click here to send her an email.