The Mother v KN & Anor

On an application to terminate an unmarried father’s parental responsibility, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. The court may use the welfare checklist as an analytical framework, but there is no substitute test or presumption favouring continuation of parental responsibility. Relevant considerations include the effect of the parent’s conduct on the primary carer and child, the child’s vulnerabilities, the nature of the relationship with the parent, and whether a lesser order would adequately protect the child’s welfare. Termination is justified only on solid grounds, but may be proportionate where continued parental responsibility would perpetuate litigation, intimidation or instability. The court may also regulate contact and restrict further applications where necessary for the child’s welfare.

The mother applied in relation to her six-year-old child for termination of the father’s parental responsibility, variation of the child arrangements order to end direct contact, and a Children Act 1989 section 91(14) order. The family had experienced lengthy and contentious litigation. The father had repeatedly challenged court orders, contacted professionals and sought routes to maintain contact with the child and mother.

The central issues were whether termination of parental responsibility was in the child’s welfare interests, whether contact should be limited to indirect communication, and whether further applications should require permission.

1. Parental responsibility. The child’s welfare was the paramount consideration under the Children Act 1989. The court was not required to apply the welfare checklist, but could use it as an analytical framework. The considerations relevant to an application for parental responsibility did not constitute a substitute test for termination. There was no presumption that an unmarried father’s parental responsibility should continue.
2. The father loved the child and could have safe and positive interactions with a young child in suitable circumstances. That was not sufficient. The mother was the child’s primary carer and was genuinely fearful and intimidated by the father. His repeated challenges to orders, communications with professionals and inability to control his behaviour when opposed created a substantial risk that continued parental responsibility would be used to find or contact the mother and child.
3. The child’s autism, communication difficulties, dysregulation and educational needs made calm and stable parenting particularly important. The child had only a limited relationship with the father and there was no evidence of immediate detriment from the absence of direct contact. The impact of continuing litigation and anxiety on the mother, and consequently on the child, outweighed the benefits of retaining parental responsibility.
4. The court considered whether restrictions short of termination would suffice. They would not, because any continuing element of parental responsibility would undermine the mother’s confidence and leave scope for further attempts to circumvent orders. Parental responsibility was therefore removed.
5. Direct contact was replaced by once-yearly indirect letterbox contact through a post office box, enabling the child to know the father’s identity and later choose whether to initiate contact. A non-molestation order was extended for 12 months. A prohibited steps order was refused because the evidence did not justify further restrictions where the father understood clear orders. A section 91(14) order was made until the child’s sixteenth birthday. A civil restraint order was refused as disproportionate.