Key Facts
- •A, a New Zealand national, sought a Parental Responsibility Order (PRO) for two half-siblings, D (14) and K (10), following their unlawful removal from New Zealand by their mother, M, to the UK.
- •A had a Guardianship Order for D but not K.
- •M, a British national, removed the children without A's knowledge or consent, placing them with her sister in the UK.
- •A had been a significant figure in both children's lives, particularly K, whom he had raised as his daughter.
- •The case involved complex background facts concerning M's past relationships and alleged domestic abuse.
- •The Children's Guardian, Ms Demery, provided reports on the children's well-being and views.
Legal Principles
Paramountcy principle: the child's welfare is the paramount consideration.
Children Act 1989, section 1(1)
Factors for determining a PRO application: commitment, attachment, and reasons for application.
Re H (Parental Responsibility) [1998] 1 FLR 855
Parental responsibility is a question of status with implications for various legal processes.
Re H (Parental Responsibility) [1998] 1 FLR 855
Parental responsibility involves duties to the child, not just the court.
Re H-B (Children: Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 389
Where multiple people have parental responsibility, each can act alone.
Re H (a Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664
The concept of the 'psychological parent' is relevant.
Re G [2006] UKHL 43
A PRO can recognise the significant parental role played in a child's life.
Re B (No. 2) (a Child) [2017] EWHC 488 (Fam)
A fact-specific approach is needed when considering parental responsibility.
A v B and C [2012] 2 FLR 607
Section 4A(1)(b) Children Act 1989 allows the court to order that a step-parent shall have parental responsibility for the child
Children Act 1989, section 4A(1)(b)
Outcomes
PRO granted for K.
A had a long-standing, committed relationship with K, who viewed him as her father. The order recognised the reality of their relationship and provided reassurance and protection for K.
PRO not granted for D.
D's expressed wishes and feelings were resistant to the PRO. Respecting his autonomy and avoiding potential disempowerment were prioritized.