Children: Parental Responsibility

Children: Parental Responsibility

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as she did not qualify under s42 HFEA due to natural conception; PR acquired by mistake is void ab initio. M2 is not granted PR for any child due to inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm to the children. F is granted PR for RF and AF due to demonstrated commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Applications for name change, baptism, foreign passports, and unrestricted travel are refused. The application to set aside the February 2025 findings is dismissed as the new evidence does not undermine the original...

Parties
Applicant: M1; Respondent 1/cross Applicant 1: M2; Respondent 2/cross Applicant 2: F; Respondents 3 5: RF, AF and FA (by their Children's Guardian Mr B)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 September 2026
Procedural Posture
Children Act/family Law (parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Specific Issue, Prohibited Steps) / Final Welfare Hearing After Fact Finding and Parentage Declarations
Outcome
M2's application to set aside parentage findings is dismissed; M2 is found never to have had PR for RF and AF and is refused PR for all children; F is granted PR for RF and AF; M2's contact with RF and AF is limited to supervised contact; FA lives with M1 with no contact with M2; applications for name change,...
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements Orders, Declarations of Parentage, Prohibited Steps Orders, Specific Issue Orders, Change of Name, Contact, Removal of Parental Responsibility, Disclosure, Section 91(14) Orders
Family Law Children Law Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements Orders Declarations of Parentage Prohibited Steps Orders Specific Issue Orders Change of Name +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M1

Applicant

M2

Respondent 1/cross Applicant 1

F

Respondent 2/cross Applicant 2

RF, AF and FA (by their Children's Guardian Mr B)

Respondents 3 5

Procedural Posture

Children Act/family Law (parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Specific Issue, Prohibited Steps) / Final Welfare Hearing After Fact Finding and Parentage Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether M2 retains or should be granted parental responsibility for RF, AF, and FA
  2. 2 Whether F should be granted parental responsibility for RF and AF
  3. 3 Whether M2 should have contact with FA

Ratio Decidendi

M2 never had parental responsibility for RF and AF as she did not qualify under s42 HFEA due to natural conception; PR acquired by mistake is void ab initio. M2 is not granted PR for any child due to inability to accept court findings and risk of emotional harm to the children. F is granted PR for RF and AF due to demonstrated commitment and relationship. M2's contact with RF and AF must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm. FA lives with M1 and has no contact with M2. Applications for name change, baptism, foreign passports, and unrestricted travel are refused. The application to set aside the February 2025 findings is dismissed as the new evidence does not undermine the original...

Court Disposition

M2's application to set aside parentage findings is dismissed; M2 is found never to have had PR for RF and AF and is refused PR for all children; F is granted PR for RF and AF; M2's contact with RF and AF is limited to supervised contact; FA lives with M1 with no contact with M2; applications for name change,...

Orders

  • M2 found never to have had PR for RF and AF; no PR granted to M2 for any child
  • F granted PR for RF and AF