Cambridge Family Law Practice

In A Father v A Mother and Others [2025] EWFC 524, the Family Court refused a father’s unusual application to have his own parental responsibility removed. The decision confirms that parental responsibility exists for the benefit of the child, not the parent, and that the court will not terminate it simply because family conflict has become intolerable for the adult concerned.

What is Parental Responsibility?

Parental responsibility, often called “PR”, is the legal status that gives a parent rights, duties, powers and responsibilities in relation to a child. It includes involvement in major decisions about matters such as education, health and welfare.
The court emphasised that PR is not primarily about parental entitlement. Its purpose is to support the child’s welfare. Whether PR should continue or be removed is therefore judged by reference to the child’s best interests.

Background to the case

The father had two daughters, aged 10 and 12. There had been a long history of litigation between him and the children’s mother. The mother had made a number of allegations of abuse against the father, though none had been found proved in the Family Court.
In 2019, the court made a shared care order. For several years after that, the father had regular and direct contact with the children. That contact continued until May 2025.

The father applied to remove his own PR. He argued that the mother’s hostility, allegations and conduct had made his position unbearable. He said the continuing conflict was damaging and that the mother had been using the children as part of that conflict. He believed that giving up PR would reduce the pressure on the children.

The children’s guardian opposed the application.

The Court’s decision

Lieven J refused the father’s application.

The judge held that the children’s welfare was the court’s paramount consideration. Removing PR had to be justified by reference to the children’s interests, not the father’s distress or the difficulties between the adults.

A key point was that the father still had a real relationship with the children. He had cared for them under a shared care arrangement until recently, and the children were close to him. At ages 10 and 12, they were old enough to understand that he was their father and that he had played an active role in their lives.

The court considered that the children would likely find it incomprehensible to be told that their father’s parental responsibility had been removed. Such an order would wrongly suggest that he no longer had a role in their lives. That was not true, and it was not in the children’s best interests.

What order was made instead?

Due to the fact the father was no longer seeking contact at that point, the court amended the previous shared care arrangement. The children were to “live with” their mother.

However, the judge encouraged the mother to support the children if they wished to have contact with their father in the future.

Simon Bethel, one of the Partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, observes:

“This case is important because it shows that a parent cannot simply stop making decisions about, and being involved in the children’s lives, and thus lose their parental responsibility, solely because the relationship with the other parent has broken down, or litigation has become overwhelming – as can often be the case.

Parental responsibility is child-focused. In A Father v A Mother, the answer was clear; the father remained important to his daughters, and removing his parental responsibility would not reflect the reality or importance of their relationship with him, or promote their welfare. He remained a central figure in their lives.”