The recent case of Re X (A Child) [2025] examined the meaning of “father” under section 2 of the Children Act 1989 (CA1989). It was also considered whether a man automatically has parental responsibility (PR) simply because he was married to the child’s mother at the time of birth, even if he is not the biological father.

 There were three key parties:

• the mother (M),
• the biological father (F), and
• the mother’s former husband (H).

M and H were still married when M conceived and gave birth to the child with F. As a result, H was named as the child’s father on the birth certificate. The true parentage came to light when a DNA test in 2020 confirmed F as the biological father. H’s name was removed from the birth certificate in 2021.

In 2025, F obtained a declaration of parentage. He then applied for a declaration that H did not have PR. H supported this application; M opposed it.

Judgment

Justice Harrison accepted F’s submissions. He decided that when a child’s mother and father are married at the time of birth, each has PR—but that “father” in this context carries its ordinary meaning: the biological father. Because CA1989 does not define “father,” the court must interpret it using its everyday meaning unless Parliament has clearly provided otherwise.

The judge pointed out that Parliament has expressly recognised non-biological parents in other parts of the legislation, such as Schedule 1 to CA1989. Further support comes from section 2(1A), which grants PR to non-biological parents who are treated as parents under sections 42 - 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. If Parliament had intended “father” in section 2 to include non-biological fathers, it would have made this explicit.

Justice Harrison concluded that H could not retain PR. It was compared to if an unmarried man was incorrectly named on a birth certificate that such an error would not confer PR. PR is a significant legal responsibility, and biological parentage remains an important factor.

The judge also noted that it was not in the child’s best interests for H to hold PR: he was not the biological father, had no desire to act as a parent, and did not wish to make decisions for the child.

It is important to remember though that husbands who are not biological fathers but who wish to retain PR for a child with whom they have a meaningful and established relationship can apply for PR provided they have a sufficient connection to the child.

For those facing uncertainty or disputes around PR for a child it is important that specialist legal advice is sought.