Court of Appeal redraws the limits of fatherhood in parental responsibility ruling

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the landmark matter of Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility), [2026] EWCA Civ 344. 

The appellant was in a relationship with the mother at the time of the subject child’s birth and he was recorded as the child’s father on the birth certificate.  The appellant raised the child, as his own, for the first two years of the child’s life. However subsequent DNA testing following the end of the parties’ relationship established that the appellant was not in fact the biological father.  The biological father did not wish to have a role in the child’s life and he did not wish to be involved in these proceedings. The appellant continued to pursue a parental relationship with the child, and issued an application for parental responsibility, and for various welfare orders, in November 2024. 

The matter came before Deborah Powell KC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge in December 2024. The appellant accepted that a declaration of non-paternity should be made under s55A Family Law Act 1986. However, his case was that the fact that he was not the child’s biological father did not render his acquisition of parental responsibility as void ab initio. His position was that he maintained parental responsibility pursuant to s4(1) (a) Children Act 1989, and that his parental responsibility could only be removed by court order pursuant to s4(2A). The appellant’s case was that, before the court made any order to remove his parental responsibility, the court should conduct a welfare-based analysis as the child’s welfare should be given paramount consideration in accordance with section 1 (1) Children Act 1989. The mother’s case was that, given that the appellant was not the biological father, he had never acquired parental responsibility.

The judgment was reported as KL v BA [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam) and determined that the appellant had never acquired parental responsibility for the child, despite having being registered on the birth certificate. As such, it was held that no order was required to remove his parental responsibility.  The International Family Law Group LLP appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal, and the case became known as Re J.

The decisions subject to appeal: Re J, Re M and Re P 

The legal issue common in the cases of Re J, Re M, and Re P was a consideration of the legal consequences following from an individual having been registered on a child’s birth certificate in circumstances whereby it had been subsequently determined that they are not the child’s legal father. In both the cases of Re J and Re M, the individuals both acted as psychological/social parents to the child and they did so believing that they had joint parental responsibility with the child’s mother, by virtue of having been registered as ‘father’ on the child’s birth certificate. 

The case of Re P was further complicated by a highly unusual factual matrix. Specifically, the mother in Re P had engaged in sexual intercourse with identical twins within a one-week window from the estimated date of conception. This subsequently meant that DNA testing was unable to accurately decipher which twin would have been the biological father. Whilst one of the twins was named as father on the birth certificate, each twin had a 50% chance of being the biological father. 

Decision of the Court of Appeal 

The Court of Appeal handed down a lengthy judgment on the conjoined appeal on 20 March 2026. The judgment is essential reading for all children practitioners. The headline points however include:

• The definition of ‘father’ under the Children Act 1989 is limited to a child’s biological father and does not extend to psychological or social parents
• In circumstances where an individual is named on a birth certificate as a child’s father, but that individual is not in fact the child’s biological father, parental responsibility is not conferred by virtue of their registration on the birth certificate.
• In order to obtain parent responsibility by virtue of registration on a birth certificate under section 4 of the Children Act 1989, the individual must be the biological father and that person must be registered as the ‘father’ on the child’s birth certificate.
• In Re P, neither twin could prove they are the child’s biological father so neither have parental responsibility in relation to the subject child.

What does this judgment mean in practice?

The implications of the Court’s judgment are vast:

• Just because a man may be named on a child’s birth certificate, it does not mean that his PR in relation to a child is unquestionable – indeed, he may never have had it;
• It would appear that DNA testing will be required to establish parental responsibility in cases where an unmarried man is registered on the birth certificate as ‘father’ and there are doubts as to paternity;
• All is not lost however for non-biological fathers: when making a welfare assessment, a court must still consider social/psychological parenting and look to the realities of the emotional bonds a child holds, as well as his or her biological parenthood;
• In circumstances where an individual has become a psychological/social parent of a child, the appropriate legal route to protect their role in the children’s life is to apply for child arrangements orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 and a parental responsibility order under section 12;
• Particular care must be taken in international cases, as the judgment is likely to have a huge impact where “rights of custody” are in play in a Hague Convention matter.

Copyright & permissions