A, Re

The court may revoke a father’s parental responsibility where, having regard to the child’s welfare and the circumstances of the case, continuing parental responsibility would expose the primary carer to unnecessary difficulty or require her to seek the father’s consent on important matters. The court will approach termination cautiously where paternity is established, including where the father’s name appears on the birth certificate. Serious abuse, criminal convictions, complete disengagement from the child and lack of material support may justify immediate revocation where the order is in the child’s best interests.

The application concerned a child under 18 months old. The mother applied to revoke the father’s parental responsibility. The father was identified as the child’s biological father and his name appeared on the birth certificate. The evidence included a history of abuse, serious criminal convictions, no meaningful involvement in the child’s life and no material support. The court also considered whether England and Wales had jurisdiction based on the child’s habitual residence and how the order should be served.

1. The court found that the father was the child’s father. His name was on the birth certificate, and both parents believed that he was the father. The court therefore approached revocation with the usual reluctance to terminate parental responsibility in an established paternal relationship.
2. The child was habitually resident in England and Wales. The mother had returned to England, where she was born and held British nationality and a British passport. Her temporary stay in Country A had not involved employment, settlement or an intention to emigrate, and she might never have lost her habitual residence.
3. The court considered revocation to be the most sensible order. The father had shown no interest in participating in his daughter’s life, had caused the mother substantial difficulty, had serious criminal convictions and had provided no material support. Continuing parental responsibility could require the mother to seek his consent for matters such as schooling or medical treatment.
4. The court concluded that immediate revocation was in the child’s best interests. Although the judge had initially considered deferring the application for approximately six months to see whether the father became involved or took responsibility, the information provided at the hearing justified making the order at once.
5. The order was to be served by recorded delivery at the father’s last known address and by email. No order for costs was made because a costs order might be inflammatory and difficult or uneconomic to enforce.