KL v BA [2025] EWHC 102 Explained – what it means for Parental Responsibility

KL v BA [2025] EWHC 102 considered whether a man named as the father on his child’s birth certificate, but not married to the mother, should have his parental responsibility revoked. This consideration arose after genetic testing revealed that he was not the child’s biological father.

Background

The dispute involved a child whose birth was registered by both parents. KL was listed on the birth certificate as the child’s father. However, subsequent genetic testing revealed that he was not the child’s biological father. After the parents separated, the child continued to spend time with KL until the mother decided to stop this arrangement. She then sought to remove KL’s parental responsibilities.

Key Considerations

Several factors guided the court’s deliberations on deciding whether parental responsibility applied:

• 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 parental responsibility because of a mistake or a misrepresentation
• 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 ruled that KL did not gain parental responsibility merely by being listed as the child’s father on her birth certificate. Consequently, he never held parental responsibility for the child, so it was unnecessary to remove any parental responsibility from him.

Implications for Future Cases

This case sets a significant precedent for disputes over PR, especially when someone listed as the “Father” on a birth certificate is not the biological father. It underscores the legal complexities that arise from genetic testing in such situations.

If you need help from our Family Law team, please get in touch today at 01484 810210 or contact us.