Parental Responsibility: Mistakes and Missteps and the Impact of KL v BA [2025]

The recent High Court case of KL v BA [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam) examines the acquisition of parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989 and the consequences of errors in birth registration. This judgment, which determined that a father mistakenly named on a birth certificate did not acquire parental responsibility, highlights the complexities of family law and the practical challenges of navigating parental rights.

The Facts of the Case

This case concerned a child, MA, born in 2020 to her mother, BA. Shortly after her birth, BA registered MA’s birth with KL, naming him as the child’s father. However, after the breakdown of their relationship, BA revealed in 2022 that KL was not MA’s biological father. Subsequent DNA testing confirmed this.

Despite this revelation, KL wished to continue his parental role in MA’s life. He applied for a parental responsibility order to secure his rights in the event that BA sought to remove them. Meanwhile, BA sought a declaration of non-parentage, arguing that KL’s parental responsibility should be void from the outset.

The key issue before the court was whether KL had acquired parental responsibility by being named on the birth certificate, and if so, whether that responsibility could be voided once his non-paternity was established.

What Is Parental Responsibility?

Under Section 3 of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility is defined as the rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities that a parent has concerning a child. It includes decisions about education, medical treatment, and religious upbringing.

For fathers not married to the child’s mother, Section 4 of the Act outlines three routes to acquiring parental responsibility:

1. Being named on the birth certificate (after December 1, 2003).
2. Entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the mother.
3. Obtaining a court order granting parental responsibility.

The Judgment: No Parental Responsibility Acquired

The High Court ruled that KL did not acquire parental responsibility because he was not MA’s biological father. The court emphasised that the biological link is the foundation for acquiring parental responsibility under Section 4(1)(a). A man mistakenly named on a birth certificate does not meet this criterion and cannot gain parental responsibility through registration alone.

This conclusion overturned KL’s claim and clarified that his putative parental responsibility was void ab initio (from the outset) once non-paternity was proven.

Practical Guidance: How to Acquire Parental Responsibility

For fathers seeking to acquire parental responsibility in England, the following options are available:

1. Be Named on the Birth Certificate Fathers who attend the birth registration with the mother and are named on the birth certificate automatically gain parental responsibility, provided they are the biological father.
2. Parental Responsibility Agreement Fathers can enter into a written agreement with the mother, signed and witnessed, to formalise their parental responsibility. This is useful when the father’s name is not on the birth certificate but both parents agree on his involvement.
3. Court Order If agreement cannot be reached, a father can apply to the court for a parental responsibility order. Courts assess the father’s commitment, relationship with the child, and reasons for applying.

Lessons from KL v BA for Family Law Practitioners

1. The Importance of Biological Links This case reinforces that biological paternity is central to parental responsibility acquired through birth registration. Practitioners must verify paternity if disputes arise to avoid reliance on incorrect registrations.
2. Legal Challenges of Void Responsibility The court’s decision that KL’s parental responsibility was void ab initio prevents uncertainty about prior decisions made in good faith by someone acting without true legal authority. Lawyers should advise clients on the limitations of non-biological parental rights.
3. The Role of Welfare Analysis Although KL’s case did not require a welfare analysis due to the voiding of his parental responsibility, courts must undertake such assessments when removing parental responsibility from biological fathers. Welfare remains the paramount consideration under the Children Act.
4. Errors in Birth Registration Mistakes or misrepresentations during birth registration can lead to significant legal consequences. Practitioners should ensure clients understand the implications of being named on a birth certificate.

Reflections: Balancing Biology and Bond

The case of KL v BA underscores the careful balance courts must strike between the biological foundations of parental responsibility and the emotional bonds between children and non-biological parents. While KL’s dedication to MA was evident, the law prioritised the clarity and intent of the statutory framework.

For parents, the lesson is clear: birth registration is not merely a formality. For lawyers, this case serves as a reminder to approach disputes involving parental responsibility with meticulous attention to legal principles and family dynamics.

Contact Information

James Thornton Family Law is open for business, and we’re ready to help with your family law needs. For more information or to book a consultation, please get in touch:

• Phone: 01904 373111
• Email: [email protected]
• Website: www.jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk
• Office Address: James Thornton Family Law, Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane York YO1 8SU