Cambridge Family Law Practice

The legal status of ‘parent’ cannot be maintained when significant evidence to the contrary is available, the High Court recently confirmed.

In Re X (A Child), a couple with a 15-year-old child began to experience difficulties in their marriage. The wife had a relationship with another man and became pregnant.

At first the wife did not tell her husband that he was not the biological father of the new baby, referred to in the judgement as ‘X’. As a result, the husband was named on the birth certificate. But later she admitted the truth to ‘H’, and following a paternity test, the couple divorced. According to Mr Justice Harrison in the High Court, they remain on amicable terms and co-parent their teenage child.

In 2021 the husband’s name was removed from the birth certificate. At the time, the name of X’s biological father could not be added to replace this. But eventually, in May 2025, ‘F’, as he was referred to in judgement, was granted a declaration of parentage, evidencing that he was indeed the biological father of X.

Later, F returned to court, seeking an additional declaration, that the former husband should hold no ‘parental responsibility’ for X, meaning he would no longer be considered a legal parent of X. Mr Justice Harrison noted:

“H, who has appeared before me remotely, agrees with this proposition and does not seek to assert parental responsibility over X.”

By contrast, the mother opposed to the application. She argued that:

“…H’s construction of the word “father” as being restricted to biological fathers could result in all married fathers having to affirm their paternity with concrete proof in order to establish that they held parental responsibility. In X’s case, she asserts that denying H parental responsibility could disrupt X’s family life and create instability for her.”

His Honour explained that:

“I am asked to determine the meaning of the word “father” in the context of section 2 of the Children Act 1989. Does the word mean biological father and only that or does the word’s meaning include the husband of a mother who conceives a child by another man?”

Mr Justice Harrison considered the provisions of the Children Act 1989, a central piece of legislation in most cases involving parenthood:

“…section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989 which provides as follows: “Where a child’s father and mother were married to or civil partners of each other at the time of the birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child.” So far, so good.”

He continued:

“The word “father”, however, is not defined in the Children Act 1989. In the absence of such a definition, I consider that the word should carry its ordinary meaning, namely biological father.”

Turning to the mother’s argument, Mr Justice Harrison concluded:

“In my judgement, the presumption of legitimacy upon which the mother relies is a rule of evidence. Its effect is that absent evidence to the contrary a man is presumed to be the father of a child born during his marriage to the child’s mother. That presumption can, however, easily be displaced by proof to the contrary, for example in the form of DNA evidence.

In this case, H was presumed to be X’s father when she was born and would have been presumed to hold parental responsibility for her. That presumption has now been displaced. He is not her biological father. In my view, there is no reason to continue to attribute parental responsibility…”

Therefore Mr Justice Harrison granted the declaration sought by the biological father.

Jeremy Ford, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, observes: “This judgment makes complete sense, from a legal perspective. This is not to take away from the many individuals who are for all other sense of purpose the ‘mothers’ and ‘fathers’ of children who for one reason or another do not carry the legal status of a ‘parent’, for example step-parents who are wholeheartedly considered ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ by the relevant child, often in a scenario in which the child fully understands that that individual is not legally or biologically their parent.”

Read the full judgement here.