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.