P v F
[2023] EWHC 2730 (Fam)
Re A (Parental Responsibility)
16 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 689
Court of Appeal
The court decided that it's okay that the law lets you take away parental rights from unmarried dads but not married dads. Even though this seems unfair, the court says it's fine because there are other ways to stop bad dads from seeing their kids, and removing the right to see them completely doesn't make that much difference if the dad is already kept away by court order.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns the Children Act 1989's distinction in revoking parental responsibility between married and unmarried parents.
- •Married parents' parental responsibility cannot be revoked; unmarried parents' can be revoked by court order.
- •Appellant mother argues this discriminates against married mothers, breaching ECHR rights.
- •First instance judge dismissed the application, issuing a prohibited steps order effectively removing the father's parental rights.
- •The father was found to have engaged in extensive physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse towards the mother and children.
Legal Principles
Definition of parental responsibility
Children Act 1989, s 3(1)
Acquisition of parental responsibility
Children Act 1989, s 2
Revocation of parental responsibility for unmarried parents
Children Act 1989, ss 4(2A), 4ZA(5), 4A(3)
Court's power to control the exercise of parental responsibility
Children Act 1989, s 8
Prohibited steps orders
Children Act 1989, s 8
ECHR Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
ECHR Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14
Human Rights Act 1998, s 4: Declaration of incompatibility
Human Rights Act 1998, s 4
Human Rights Act 1998, s 3: Interpretation of legislation compatibly with Convention rights
Human Rights Act 1998, s 3
Justification of discrimination under ECHR
R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; application for a declaration of incompatibility refused.
The distinction between married and unmarried parents regarding revocation of parental responsibility is justified. The court held that the impact of not being able to revoke a married father's parental responsibility was minimal in cases where prohibited steps orders already effectively removed the father's ability to exercise those rights. The long-standing principle of affording priority to marriage in family law was upheld.