Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 47
What does “father” mean
by Phoebe Starbuck, Associate
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.
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
de昀椀ne “father,” the court must interpret it using
its everyday meaning unless Parliament has clearly
provided otherwise.
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 certi昀椀cate.
The true parentage came to light when a DNA test in
2020 con昀椀rmed F as the biological father. H’s name
was removed from the birth certi昀椀cate in 2021.
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 nonbiological fathers, it would have made this explicit.
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.
Justice Harrison concluded that H could not retain
PR. It was compared to if an unmarried man was
incorrectly named on a birth certi昀椀cate that such an
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
45
FEBRUARY 2026
