The recently decided case of KL v BA (Parental Responsibility) [2025] has become a significant milestone in family law.
The case looked at whether a ‘father’ who was not married to the child’s mother, but named on the child’s birth certificate, upon genetic testing was found not to be the child’s biological father, should have his acquisition of parental responsibility void so that it never had any legal effect.
Background
The dispute involved a child whose birth was registered by both parents. KL was named on the birth certificate as the child’s father. However, subsequent genetic testing showed that he was not the child’s biological father. After separation, the child continued to spend time with KL until the mother stopped this. She sought to remove KL’s parental responsibility.
Key Considerations
Several factors guided the court’s deliberations:
- The biological link identifies a man as the father of a child. When that is displaced, the man’s status as the ‘father’ cannot continue.
- a man who is not the biological or legal father of a child cannot acquire PR because of a mistake or misrepresentation in registering the birth.
- the registration of the birth is simply the evidence of parentage, and where an issue arises about that parentage, that the court must resolve.
Outcome
The court decided that KL had not acquired parental responsibility when he was registered on the birth certificate. It was, therefore, not necessary to remove his PR from him.
Implications for future cases
This case sets an important precedent for future parental responsibility disputes where a ‘Father’ registered on a birth certificate is not found to be the child’s biological father. It shows the complex legal issues that can arise surrounding fathers, birth certificates, and parental responsibility. The Gov website goes into detail about what PR is.
Need help with a family matter? Contact us today via the link or by phone 01484 810210