DW (A Minor) & Anor v SG

Parental responsibility acquired by an unmarried father should not be terminated lightly. The applicant bears a firm burden of proof, and the court must treat the child’s welfare as paramount under the Children Act 1989. The court should also consider whether the established criteria for granting parental responsibility would now be satisfied. Termination may be justified where the parent’s conduct has caused serious harm, there is no present attachment or beneficial role, and continued parental responsibility would threaten the child’s emotional security. The statutory power to terminate parental responsibility is compatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. A related application for information or contact must likewise be determined by reference to welfare, emotional harm and the child’s need for security.

The mother applied under section 4 of the Children Act 1989 to terminate the father’s parental responsibility for D, an eight-year-old boy. The father had acquired parental responsibility because he was registered as D’s father. He had been convicted of numerous sexual offences against D’s half-sisters and had served a custodial sentence. The father maintained a relationship with D and sought annual reports about his progress. The mother sought termination of parental responsibility and opposed any reporting obligation.

The court considered the effect of the father’s convictions, expert and CAFCASS evidence, D’s wishes and emotional needs, the risk of further harm, and the compatibility of section 4(2A) with Articles 8 and 14. It also considered whether the father’s application for a specific issues order should succeed.

1. Termination of parental responsibility. The court followed the approach in Re P (Terminating Parental Responsibility) [1995] 1 FLR 1048. Parental responsibility, once granted, should not be withdrawn lightly. The burden rests firmly on the applicant, and the child’s welfare is paramount. The court should consider the established criteria for granting parental responsibility and whether the parent could exercise any part of it beneficially.
2. The amendments made by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 did not narrow the power in section 4(2A). Parliament expressly preserved the power to terminate parental responsibility for fathers acquiring it through registration. The court rejected the argument that section 4(2A) breached Articles 8 and 14, following Smallwood v UK (1999) 27 EHRR 155, whose reasoning remained applicable.
3. The father’s convictions were accepted as establishing the underlying facts, subject only to exceptional circumstances. His persistent denials undermined his reliability. The expert risk assessment was rejected as unreliable because it failed to treat the convictions as the factual basis of the assessment.
4. Applying the welfare factors, the decisive considerations were D’s emotional needs, the harm already suffered and the risk of further harm. The father’s conduct had destroyed any beneficial basis for parental responsibility. There was no current attachment, and continued involvement would imperil D’s emotional security. The father’s Article 8 rights were outweighed by D’s overriding need for security within his family.
5. The application for an annual report was refused. The mother could not reasonably be expected to provide regular information, and imposing that obligation would threaten D’s emotional security.
6. The court made an order under section 4(2A) terminating parental responsibility. It directed that the father could prepare a letter for D, to be retained and disclosed if D later sought information about him. It declined to make a section 91(14) restriction, but directed that any future section 8 application be transferred initially to the High Court.

First-instance decision. No appeal or earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings is stated.