KL v BA (Parental responsibility)

A man who is not the biological or legal father of a child does not acquire parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 merely because he is mistakenly named as the father on the birth certificate. Birth registration does not create a legal presumption of parentage. The natural and ordinary meaning of “father” applies. The use of “person” in section 4(2A) does not extend section 4(1)(a) to non-fathers. Where parental responsibility was never acquired, no order is required to remove it and no welfare analysis arises under section 4(2A).

The applicant had registered the child’s birth jointly with the respondent and was named as the father. He believed himself to be the biological father and exercised parental responsibility in the child’s early life. Genetic testing later established that another man was the biological father. The respondent obtained, and the applicant did not oppose, a declaration of non-parentage.

The court had to determine whether the applicant’s parental responsibility was void from the outset or could be terminated only by court order. If an order was required, the further issue was whether it required a welfare analysis.

1. Application of section 4(1)(a). The court applied ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. The word “father” in section 4(1)(a) refers to the biological or legal father under the common law. The applicant was neither. His honest belief, and his registration on the birth certificate, could not satisfy the statutory condition.
2. Effect of registration. P v Q and F (Child: Legal Parentage) made clear that birth registration is practical evidence of parentage, not a legal presumption. That removed the central basis of Re C’s contrary reasoning.
3. Section 4(2A). The reference to a “person” in section 4(2A) was consistent with that person being a father who had acquired parental responsibility under section 4(1). It did not require section 4(1)(a) to cover a man wrongly named as father. The legislative history and the Explanatory Notes to section 111 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 supported that conclusion.
4. Public policy. The court was not persuaded that treating the putative parental responsibility as never acquired created identified legal difficulties. Section 3(5) of the Children Act 1989 could authorise reasonable acts by a person without parental responsibility to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Public policy therefore did not justify departing from the statutory language.
5. Welfare analysis and disposition. Re D (A Child) concerned the removal of parental responsibility from a biological father and did not govern acquisition under section 4(1)(a). Since the applicant had never acquired parental responsibility, no order under section 4(2A) was required and the welfare issue did not arise. His applications for child arrangements and other orders were left to the local family court.