Men listed on a child’s birth certificate do not automatically have parental responsibility if they are not the biological father, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
The case combined three appeals – Re J, Re M and Re P – and clarified that under the Children Act 1989, only biological fathers listed on a birth certificate have automatic parental rights.
In Re J, a man raised a child for two years, thinking he was the father and he was named on the birth certificate. However, DNA tests later showed he was not the biological father, who did not want to be involved. The court ruled he never had parental responsibility.
In another case, Re P, a woman became pregnant after having intercourse with identical twins. DNA tests could not tell which twin was the father, so the court said neither had parental responsibility.
The ruling means that unmarried fathers cannot assume that being on a birth certificate grants them legal rights. DNA tests may become more common when paternity is uncertain.
Non-biological fathers who have acted as a parent can still apply to the court for parental responsibility or child arrangements, but the court will always prioritise the child’s welfare.
Experts say the ruling could also affect international custody cases, including those under the Hague Convention, where biological fatherhood may now be decisive.
Established between 1899 and 1907, the Hague Convention is comprised of a series of international treaties and declarations related to child safety. It includes the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the 1961 Apostille Convention.
James Netto, Rosa Schofield, and Beatrice Holt from the International Family Law Group LLP represented the man in Re J. They worked with Laura Briggs KC, Liz Andrews, and Emma Colebatch from the law firm 1GC.
Image: Steven Van Loy/UnSplash
In related news:
Rogue landlords dodge millions as councils fail to collect fines
Leave a Reply