KL V BA (Parental responsibility) [2025] EWHC 102[1]                          

KL V BA (Parental responsibility) [2025] EWHC 102

Court Name: England and Wales High Court The case was sat before MS DEBRA POWELL KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Bench Type: High Court of Justice Family Division
Date of Judgement: 27 January 2025

Parties involved: KL (Appellant) : KL is the putative father of the case, who is later found to not be the biological father of the child. KL was the originally named father on the birth certificate but upon further tests, it was outlined that the genetic DNA does not correspond with the child. Prior to this, KL did hold the role and responsibility of a father in the child’s

life. BA (Respondent) : BA is the mother of the child, in this case she is the biological mother of the child and there are no issues regarding her maternity rights in this case.
Facts of case: The parties (KL) and (BA) were in a relationship in 2019 and as their relationship organically proceeded, the mother (BA) had informed the applicant ( KL) she was pregnant in September. During their relationship after the birth of MA, KL and BA shared her care but the time they spent together is contentious. KL did believe he was MA’s biological father and on 6th July 2020, BA and KL both registered, MA’s birth together and had named KL as the father on the birth certificate. Until 2022, KL assumed that he was the biological father of the child and it was only revealed after the breakdown of their relationship by BA herself, that he was not. This was confirmed by DNA testing in October 2023 that her father is another man, ST. At present, the biological father does not want to have a more prominent role in his daughter MA’s life and believes that this is a decision for MA, the daughter to make herself when she is old enough to make a decision of upholding a relationship with SL, in any form. Despite the change in knowledge that MA is not his biological daughter, KL continues to have a precious relationship with his daughter. After the separation, the time MA spent with her parents became divided where the mother BA had initially allowed her to spend time with KL during overnight or weekend stays. From May 2023, the arrangements have broken down where the mother is refusing to allow unsupervised contact to take place and this led to consequent proceedings issued by KL. On 9th November 2023, KL made an application for parental responsibility order where was pursued in case of the removal of his putative parental responsibility, now that it he is not the biological father of MA. At a Dispute Resolution Appointment before lay magistrates in February 2024, KL was represented and believed he had parental responsibility at the time because he was still named on the birth certificate and also sought “for the continuation of this Parental Responsibility in the interim for the matter to be addressed at a contested hearing if necessary. At the same time. BA sought to have KL’s parental responsibility to be removed. KL does have parental responsibility until further order of the court. After this period, BA took MA abroad and did not return to this jurisdiction until August 2024 and this is when KL requested location order .

In November 2024, BA made an application for a declaration of non-parentage in respect of KL.

Key Legal Questions

1. Can a man continue to be defined as a child’s father when the biological link has been displaced?
2. Can parental responsibility still be acquired through mistaken or misleading birth certificate registration, even if the man is not the biological father?
3. Does a birth certificate constitute as a sufficient proof of parental rights or can this be challenged or corrected by court proceedings?

Arguments

Parties’ submissions

Appellant: Ms Andrews who was instructed by International Family Law Group for KL, underlined that KL had rightfully obtained parental responsibility under s.4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 with the biological mother of MA. As he was named on her birth certificate and it is not void ab inito merely as a result of the discovery that he is not the biological father. A father’s parental responsibility can only be removed by an order from the court. To support her claims, she utilises the legal analysis of HHJ Case in both judgements in re SB , and of HHJ Moradifar in re C . Based on the High Court Judgement, she did distinguish RQ v PA and Re G on several grounds but these cases were in obiter. Ms Andrews also submits that KL had exercised his parental responsibility in good faith and to defy him of his parental responsibility would cast legal uncertainty on the nature of his fatherhood and the decisions and care he has provided to date for MA. If it found that that no parental responsibility had existed from the start, this has severe repercussions on what it in the public interest. Ms Andrews underlines that if a court order is removing parental responsibility under s.4(2A) of the act, a welfare survey must be undertaken. She did also propose a more flexible approach in terms of s.4(1)(a) and the circumstances in which it can be complied with”, rather than just a strict reading of the statute. She also states that as there are multiple occasions in which mistaken parental responsibility may arise and how it might determine the child’s welfare is purely technical and this blanket approach would be contrary to public policy.

Respondent: Mr Wilson who was instructed by RWK Goodman, initially proposed that KL did not acquire parental responsibility as under s.4(1)(a) CA 1989 because he was not MA’s biological or legal father and did not fulfil the statutory criteria. As per the approach of Theis J in RQ v PA , a man who was registered as a child’s father is subsequently proven not to be the child’s father, this renders the putative acquisition of parental responsibility void ab initio. Mr Wilson also relies on the ordinary meaning of words and only a parent can obtain parental responsibility by the virtue of being named on the birth certificate. Wilson also expands on the legal definition of the father and distinguishes between unmarried couple fathers and those with mistaken identity. This is contradicted by the (later) decision of the Court of Appeal in P v Q (Child: Legal Parentage) and he submits the Explanatory Notes to s.111 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 show that the use of the word ‘person’ in s.4(2A) was not intended to extend the meaning of s.4(1) to include a person who was mistakenly named as the father. Wilson provides an answer to legal authority for parental responsibility, highlighting to s.3(5) CA 1989 and states that decisions need to be made for the purpose of promoting or safeguarding a child’s welfare rights. The alternative view proposed by Wilson is that if the applicant’s responsibility is not void ab initio, then the court should follow the decision of HHJ where an order of court can deprive parental responsibility.

Judgement The judgement outlined that KL did not acquire parental responsibility under s.4(1)(a) CA when he was mistakenly registered on the birth certificate, this displaces his parental responsibility from outset. No order under s.4(2A) CA 1989 is needed to remove the parental responsibility from him and it is unnecessary to consider a welfare analysis in this respect and Kl’s application for childcare arrangements must only be considered by local family court under Children Act 1989.

Legal Reasoning: The starting point of analysis in this case is consideration of s.4(1)(a) and it’s ordinary statutory meaning. The question is following the provision, if KL had ever acquired parental responsibility. , The primary position is that ST was MA’s biological and legal father under the common law. He would therefore be eligible to register MA’s birth with BA under s.4(1)(a) and he would MA’s father despite not being married to BA at the time. Under the ordinary meaning under statute, KL does not fulfil the criteria to be neither a biological or legal father, despite his belief before time of registration. The obiter arguments from RQ v PA propose persuasive arguments but do not have binding power. This can be confirmed with statement of HHJ Case in paragraph 64 of re SB (No.2) that “the clear intention of Parliament was to convey parental responsibility only on biological fathers pursuant to section 4(1) of the Children Act 1989. The act itself does not define the term father which underlines that the biological link is the foundation that identifies a man as the father of the child under the aforementioned statutory regime. When that foundation is displaced, the status of that man as the ‘father’ cannot persist.” KL simply acquired parental responsibility by virtue of his name being placed on birth certificate, on the mistaken belief, he was the biological father. Despite not meeting the statutory criteria, he can still acquire parental responsibility under s.4(1)(a) by virtue of a mistake. A birth certificate cannot be recognised as a legal presumption for parentage as argued by Ms Andrews following Re C judgement. In P v Q and F, this registration is only evidence for the court to determine when parentage is disputed. Mr Wilson considers a wider context in which wrongly registered men as fathers who wish to obtain parental responsibility has the propensity of expanding the territory eligible and opening room for fraud. There has also been discussion on the statutory interpretation for s.4(1) (a) “person” which was not drafted by parliament to include wrongly named fathers as proposed by Ms Andrews. Re D outlines that s.111 ACA added default PR for unmarried fathers named on birth certificate after 1st December 2003, but did change the rules for removing PR. The natural interpretation of the statute should be paramount: where there are no public policy reasons why another interpretation should be sought.

Conclusion

KL V BA (Parental responsibility) [2025] EWHC 102 stands to be at the cornerstone in family law defining questions about parental responsibility and rights of non-biological fathers. This case teaches a myriad of lessons including the importance of biological paternity. There are also wider legal implications to prevent uncertainty through the court’s decision that KL’s parental responsibility was void ab initio. This demonstrates the constraints faced by non-biological parents. It is also vital to consider the value for welfare analysis for Children where courts should measure the welfare of children, when removing parental responsibility.

My exploration of this case has taught me that the law must embrace a balance between the biological presence of parental responsibility and emotional bonds shared between parents who raised their children but are not genetically connected. Despite epitome of fatherly devotion to MA, the judgement weighed in favour of law over emotional bonds. This underlines the complex and emotional-inducing nature of family law that struggles through legal guardrails and family dynamics.

Reference(S):

[1] KL V BA (Parental responsibility) [2025] EWHC 102

[2] 20 F and Bell A-S, ‘Kl V BA (Parental Responsibility) [2025] EWHC 102: A Landmark Case’ (Stephens Scown, 20 February 2025) <https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/family/children-issues/kl-v-ba-parental-responsibility-2025-ewhc-102-a-landmark-case-in-family-law/> accessed 17 July 2025

[3] Children Act 1989

[4] Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)

[5] Re C (A Child) (No Contact) [2024] EWFC 366 (B) 

[6] Re C & A (Children: Acquisition and Discharge of Parental Responsibility by an Unmarried Father) [2023] EWHC 516 (Fam)

[7] ‘England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions’ (KL v BA (Parental responsibility) (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam) (27 January 2025), 27 January 2025) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=%2Few%2Fcases%2FEWHC%2FFam%2F2025%2F102.html&query=> accessed 20 July 2025

[8] P v Q and F (Child: Legal Parentage) [2024] EWCA Civ 878

[9] Adoption and Children Act 2002

[10] Re SB 2013 EWHC 1417 (COP)

[11] Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42

[12] Thornton J, ‘Parental Responsibility: Mistakes and Missteps and the Impact of KL v BA [2025]’ (James Thornton Family Law, 28 January 2025) <https://www.jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk/parental-responsibility-mistakes-and-missteps-and-the-impact-of-kl-v-ba-2025> accessed 17 July 2025