Loss of Parental Responsibility Re J, Re M & Re P - [2026] EWCA Civ 344 - 3 cases - multi parties

The citation refers to 3 cases, all concerned with parental responsibility, heard together over three days in the Court of Appeal. 

Here is a brief resume of the facts of each case.

Case 1: 

AJ and MJ were in a relationship when MJ became pregnant. The child, J, was born in 2020 and AJ was registered as J’s father in the birth register entry.

AJ believed that he was J's biological father.

Two years later, after the relationship ended, DNA testing established that another man was J's father. That man took no real part in proceedings or in J’s life.

AJ had considered himself to be J's father, accepted the DNA test results, but wished to continue in a parental relationship with J.

Case 2: 

Child M was conceived after MM and AM purchased sperm over the internet from an anonymous donor.  AM claimed that he had not realised that he may not have legal status in relation to any child born as a result of conception using donor sperm. 

AM contended that it was always intended that he should be M's father. 

M was born in 2019 and AM was named in M's birth register entry as her father.  AM and MM were married in 2021. 

DNA testing confirmed that AM was not M's biological father. The trial judge held that AM had been dishonest over a prolonged period by holding himself out as M's genetic father.

Case 3: 

The mother had engaged in sexual intercourse with each of two identical male twins in the course of one week at the time that conception must have occurred.

As a result, whilst DNA testing establishes that the child's biological father is one of these twins, it was not possible to say which of them it is.

Sir Andrew McFarlane P posed the following questions at para 2 of the case report:

1. Is the definition of 'father' for the purposes of Children Act 1989 ['CA 1989'] limited to a child's biological/genetic father, or may it extend to others who have acted as the child's psychological/social father?
2. Where an individual is registered as a child's 'father' in their birth register entry, does parental responsibility attributed by such registration attach to a 'father' who is not, in fact, the biological/genetic father of that child?
3. If, in response to (ii), parental responsibility is afforded to a non-biological father, is it automatically terminated upon the making of a declaration that the individual is not the child's father under Family Law Act 1986, s 55A ['FLA 1986'], or does the attribution of parental responsibility continue unless and until it is terminated by a separate CA 1989 court order?
4. If, in response to (iii), a separate court order is required to terminate parental responsibility in such circumstances, is this a decision to be determined by affording paramount consideration to the child's welfare, or on some other basis?

Prior to providing the answers to those questions questions, an illustrative and exhaustive excursion into the relevant law was undertaken - with respect, too lengthy to be usefully included in this note.  However I will now recite the answers to the questions Sir Andrew McFarlane P posed.

Answers:

1. The definition of 'father' for the purposes of CA 1989 is the common law definition and is limited to a child's biological/genetic father. The definition does not, and cannot, extend to others who have acted as the child's psychological/social father.
2. Where an individual is registered as a child's 'father' in their birth register entry, the parental responsibility attributed by such registration does not attach to that individual if they are not, in fact, the biological/genetic father of the child.  In order for parental responsibility to be acquired by registration on a birth certificate under CA 1989, s 4, two conditions must each be fulfilled:
        a)  The person must be the genetic/biological father of the child; and
        b)  That person must be registered as 'father' in the child's birth register entry;
3. (& iv)   Although the parties may believe otherwise, no parental responsibility is acquired at any stage by an individual who is wrongly registered as 'father' in a birth register entry. In consequence, the question of whether parental responsibility in such circumstances is automatically terminated on the making of a declaration of non-parentage under FLA 1986, s 55A, or requires a bespoke order, simply does not arise.

It is probably unsurprising that is how the court construed parental responsibility; this case certainly clarifies matters.