In a case in which a man was named as a girl’s father on her birth certificate but was subsequently discovered not to be her biological father, the High Court has ruled that the effect of a declaration of non-parentage was to render his acquisition of parental responsibility void.
The man had entered into a relationship with the girl’s mother in 2019. From the time the girl was born, he and her mother shared her care. He believed that he was her biological father and was named as the father on her birth certificate. After his relationship with the mother came to an end, it was confirmed by genetic testing that another man was the girl’s biological father. The mother having obtained a declaration of non-parentage, the Court considered whether this rendered the man’s apparent acquisition of parental responsibility void, or whether he retained parental responsibility which could only be removed by a court order.
He argued that he had acquired parental responsibility under Section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 when he was named as the father on the girl’s birth certificate, and it had not been rendered void by the discovery that he was not her biological father. He had exercised his parental responsibility in good faith, and claimed that a decision that he had never had parental responsibility would cast legal doubt on decisions he had made about the girl’s upbringing.
The mother contended that he did not meet the statutory requirements and therefore had never had parental responsibility. The wording of Section 4(1)(a) reflected Parliament’s intention that only a parent is able to obtain parental responsibility by virtue of being named on a birth certificate. With regard to the impact of a finding that he had never had parental responsibility on his decisions in respect of the girl, the mother pointed to Section 3(5) of the Act, which provides legal authority for a person without parental responsibility who has care of a child to make decisions that are reasonable the circumstances.
The Court found that, looking at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in Section 4(1)(a), he had not been eligible to register the girl’s birth and thus acquire parental responsibility. There was no ambiguity in the words used, and he was not the girl’s father under the common law, whether biological or legal, even though he had believed he was. The Court accepted that it was entirely consistent with the Act as a whole that only a biological and legal father is eligible to register a birth and thereby acquire parental responsibility under Section 4(1)(a).
The Court concluded that the man had not acquired parental responsibility when he was mistakenly registered as the girl’s father on her birth certificate. As he had never had parental responsibility, no court order was required to remove it from him.