J (Loss of Parental Responsibility), Re

For the purposes of the Children Act 1989, a child’s father is the genetic or biological father, unless legislation expressly provides otherwise. Registration as father is evidence of parentage but does not create it. Under section 4, registration gives an unmarried father parental responsibility only where he is both the genetic father and registered as father. A wrongly registered non-father acquires no parental responsibility, so no order is needed to terminate it following a declaration of non-parentage.

A psychological or social parent may instead obtain parental responsibility through a child arrangements order. Where paternity cannot be proved, the failure to prove that a registered man is the father does not prove that he is not the father. The court may nevertheless discharge any parental responsibility that he may have acquired if welfare requires clarity.

Three conjoined appeals concerned men registered as father on children’s birth certificates. In Re J, DNA testing showed that the appellant was not the child’s genetic father. In Re M, the registered man was known not to be the genetic father following conception with donor sperm. The lower courts had reached substantially the same conclusion: High Court (Family Division), [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam), and Family Court, [2025] EWFC 211.

In Re P, the mother had intercourse with identical twins during the likely period of conception. One twin was registered as father, but neither twin could be proved to be the genetic father on the balance of probabilities. The appeals raised the consequences of birth registration for parental responsibility, and the orders available where paternity is unknown or disproved.

1. Disposition. The appeals in Re J and Re M were dismissed. The appeal in Re P succeeded only to the extent that any parental responsibility which TP1 may have acquired by registration was to cease under section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989. Further welfare issues in that case were to be addressed after additional submissions.
2. Meaning of father and registration. The common-law meaning of father applies in sections 2 and 4 of the Children Act 1989. It denotes the genetic or biological father. A social or psychological father does not thereby become a legal father. Registration is important practical evidence of parentage, but it neither establishes legal parentage nor creates a presumption of it. For acquisition of parental responsibility through section 4(1)(a), the person must both be the genetic father and be registered as father.
3. Effect of an erroneous registration. A man who is not the genetic father does not acquire parental responsibility merely because he is registered as father. The correct analysis is not that parental responsibility is retrospectively void. It never arose because the statutory condition of fatherhood was absent. A declaration of non-parentage under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 therefore does not terminate parental responsibility which was never acquired. Acts undertaken during the mistaken assumption may fall within section 3(5) of the Children Act 1989.
4. Alternative provision for social parents. Where a non-parent has an established parental role, the court may recognise that role through a child arrangements order under sections 8 and 12 of the Children Act 1989. This avoids distorting the statutory meaning of father.
5. Unproved paternity in Re P. The evidence established only that either identical twin might be P’s father. Failure to prove that TP1 was the father did not prove that he was not the father. A declaration of non-parentage under section 55A could not be made because section 58(1) required proof of non-paternity. However, the continuing uncertainty over TP1’s parental responsibility was contrary to P’s welfare. The court therefore discharged any parental responsibility TP1 may have acquired and left the future allocation of parental responsibility for welfare determination.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeals were dismissed, except that in Re P the court ordered that any parental responsibility acquired by TP1 through registration should cease under section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: In Re J, Debra Powell KC declared that AJ was not the father and held that he had never acquired parental responsibility: [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam).
• Family Court sitting at Birmingham: In Re M, HHJ Tucker declared that AM was not the father and held that any parental responsibility based on registration was lost; alternatively, she would have terminated it on welfare grounds: [2025] EWFC 211.
• Family Court sitting at East London: In Re P, HHJ Reardon refused declarations of parentage or non-parentage because neither identical twin’s paternity was proved. She made child-arrangements directions without determining parental responsibility under sections 12(2) or 12(2A) of the Children Act 1989.