R v R

In determining a child’s welfare, biological, gestational and social or psychological parenthood may each be significant, depending on the circumstances. A former psychological parent who is not the biological parent does not thereby acquire an entitlement to parental responsibility. The court must focus on the child’s future interests, including the likely effect of placing the former parent at the centre of important decisions. A step-parent parental responsibility order may be available outside the usual case of an incoming step-parent, but its exercise remains fact-sensitive and exceptional where it is likely to generate conflict. Continued information-sharing and contact may protect an important relationship without conferring parental responsibility.

The proceedings concerned a four-year-old boy who had been brought up for most of his life believing that the applicant, his mother’s husband, was his father. DNA testing established that the respondent’s former partner was the biological father. The mother sought a declaration of parentage and permission to relocate. The applicant sought parental responsibility, residence and contact.

The central issues were whether the biological father should be declared the child’s legal father, whether the applicant should receive parental responsibility under Children Act 1989, and what arrangements best served the child’s welfare pending any properly formulated relocation application.

1. Parentage. The court would make a declaration that Mr S was the biological father under s.55A of the Family Law Act 1986. Determining biological parentage was in the child’s best interests and would enable consideration of an amendment to the birth register.
2. Parental responsibility. Although Mr R had been the child’s psychological parent until the age of 2¾ and remained deeply committed to him, he was not the biological parent. Under ss.2(1) and 4A(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, the court’s paramount consideration was the child’s future welfare. The statutory power was not confined to the paradigm case of an incoming step-parent, but it was unlikely to be appropriate where granting equal status would place the applicant at the centre of future decisions and was likely to produce conflict with the mother. The application for parental responsibility was dismissed.
3. Welfare arrangements. Applying the approach in Re G (Children) [2006] 1 WLR 2305, the court recognised the importance of the existing psychological relationship but found no sufficient reason to remove the child from his mother or sister. Residence therefore remained with the mother. Mr R was instead granted regular information about the child’s health and education, together with progressively extended daytime contact outside the contact centre.
4. Relocation. The existing prohibited steps order and undertaking concerning travel documents were continued because the mother’s plans were uncertain. The Thailand application could be withdrawn. Any application to relocate to Sweden had to be amended and properly supported, with Mr R remaining a respondent because a contact order would be in force. Staying contact was refused pending greater certainty.