Parental responsibility (often shortened to PR) is a term that comes up frequently in family law, but many parents aren’t entirely sure what it covers. Understanding PR is important because it affects who can make decisions about a child’s life, from education and medical treatment to day‑to‑day care.
In this blog, we break down what parental responsibility means, who has it, and what recent case law says about situations where a person believed to be a child’s father later turns out not to be biologically related.
What is parental responsibility?
Under section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility means:
All the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that a parent has in relation to a child and their property.
In practical terms, someone with parental responsibility can make important decisions about a child’s life, including:
- where the child lives
- their education
- medical treatment
- day‑to‑day welfare decisions
Having parental responsibility does not automatically mean someone is financially responsible for the child. For example:
- A guardian has PR but no legal duty to financially support the child.
- A biological father without PR still has a financial obligation to support the child.
However, anyone with parental responsibility may face criminal liability for neglect if they fail to take reasonable steps to provide for the child’s needs.
It’s also worth noting that someone who does not have parental responsibility but who is caring for a child – such as a babysitter – can still take reasonable steps to safeguard the child in an emergency.
Recent case law: When DNA changes everything
A recent case, KL v BA [2025], explored what happens when a man listed on a child’s birth certificate later discovers he is not the biological father.
The key facts were:
- The man was named on the birth certificate and had always treated the child as his own.
- DNA testing later confirmed he was not the biological father.
- He wished to continue in the role of the child’s father and described himself as the child’s social and psychologicalparent.
The court had to decide whether he still had parental responsibility.
The court’s decision
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Because he was not the biological father, he could not have acquired PR simply by being named on the birth certificate.
- Section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act only applies to biological or legal fathers, not individuals named by mistake.
- He would need to apply to the court for PR, and CAFCASS would prepare a welfare report to assess whether granting PR was in the child’s best interests.
The Re P twist: Identical twins and uncertain paternity
One of the linked appeals, Re P, involved highly unusual circumstances:
- The mother had sexual intercourse with identical twins within a week of conception.
- DNA testing could not determine which twin was the biological father.
- One twin was named on the birth certificate, but both had an equal chance of being the biological father.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the definition of “father” under the Children Act 2004 is strictly limited to a biological father, not a psychological or social parent.
This judgment provides important clarity for cases where paternity is uncertain or later disproved.
Need advice about parental responsibility?
Parental responsibility can be complex, especially where paternity is disputed or where non‑biological parents play a significant role in a child’s life.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article you can contact Louise Barretto, a Family and Divorce lawyer for further information email on [email protected] or call 020 8334 0311.
