What is parental responsibility (PR)?
Section 3(1) Children Act 1989 states that PR is “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”. Practically speaking, PR focuses on the duties parents have in relation to the child; such as determining the child’s education and medical needs and representing the child in legal proceedings.

Who has PR?
Section 2 dictates that the mother shall have PR. The father does not automatically have PR but can get it by being married to the mother at the time of birth, if he is on the birth certificate or obtains an order from the court (see Section 4 for more examples.)

The Child’s Welfare
Generally, the courts work on the rebuttable presumption that the child would benefit from having both parents in their life. This presumption was implemented by the Children and Families Act 2014. The presumption can be rebutted if there is evidence that the involvement would cause significant harm to the child. The court will always consider the child’s best interest as the child’s welfare and best interest is the PARAMOUNT consideration in any decision made about a child. The court will also consider the welfare checklist under section 1(3):-
a) The wishes and feelings of the child concerned – taking into account age and understanding;
b) The child’s physical, emotional, and educational needs;
c) The likely effect of any change of circumstances;
d) Age, sex, background and other relevant characteristics;
e) Any harm the child has suffered or risk of such harm;
f) The capability of the parents (or other relevant person) of meeting the child’s needs;
g) What powers the Court has at its disposal.

Why would the court terminate PR?
An application to terminate PR can be made by anyone who has PR, or with leave of the court, the child them self. The mother’s PR or a father who obtained PR via marriage cannot have their PR terminated by this order. Their PR can only be terminated after an adoption, parental order has been made or upon their death. The court does not make these orders lightly and has previously terminated PR because:

• The father was imprisoned after being found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm to the child (Re P (Terminating parental responsibility) [1995] 3 FCR 753);
• The father was imprisoned after pleading guilty to various sexual assault offences, the victims being the child’s siblings (CW v SG [2013] All ER (D) 117 (Apr));
• The father was imprisoned for serious domestic violence against the mother, part of which was witnessed by the children. The father also burgled the family home after the mother and children had left and set fire to a police car. (A v D [2013] EWHC 2963 (Fam).)
• The father had been imprisoned for a series of violent attacks on the mother. After the mother obtained a restraining order, the father threatened to hunt the mother and the children down and kill them all (PM v CF [2018] EWHC 2658 (Fam))

Those were just a few cases where PR has been terminated. These cases all involved a father whose behaviour posed a serious risk to the child/children and/or it is in the best interest of the child for the PR to be terminated.
Termination of PR is a last resort and courts are reluctant to order a termination when there are other, less draconian, orders that can be made. The court also have to consider the effect of the termination of a parent’s PR on the child, considering the welfare checklist under section1(3). Furthermore, termination of PR undoubtedly interferes with the father’s Article 8 rights (right to a private and family life – ECHR)

What are these less draconian orders?
The court has a vast amount of power to prevent the father, or even limit him, from being in the child’s life (where it is in the child’s best interest to do so). One of the orders that can be made is a Child Arrangement Orders under section 8. The court can suspend the father’s (or mother’s, in relation to the termination of the PR, we are solely focusing on the father) contact with a child if he poses a serious risk to the child or order indirect or even supervised contact. The court can also make a ‘live with’ order and determine that the child will live with the mother. Section 8, therefore, gives the courts wide powers to consider the child’s best interest and make appropriate orders to safeguard the child.

If termination of PR occurs, is that the end?
Termination of PR does not necessarily sever the legal tie between the parent and child. The law treats PR and other parental responsibilities as being separate. For instances, an unmarried father who does not have PR still has a duty towards his child to provide child support maintenance and also has an automatic right to apply to the court for certain court orders in respect to his child.

So, what do we think? Should termination PR be an option?
It is clear that the courts have a wide range of less draconian powers to prevent the father from seeing the child, under section 8, and are more inclined to use them. As you can see from the previous cases, terminating PR only occurs where the father is a significant risk to the child and/or it is in the best interest of the child for the father not to have PR. Conversely, if a termination was made, the father can still make section 8 applications to the court – unless a section 91(14) order is made.
Following this, I think the courts should have the inherent discretion to make that decision to terminate PR, but it should be limited to cases where the father’s behaviour is so severe and/or causes such significant harm to the child that no other order could possibly be made to protect the child’s welfare or best interest. Furthermore, as the father can still make applications for section 8 orders, despite the revocation of his PR, termination is not such a draconian order that it should not be used in serious cases, such as those aforementioned.

All sections mentioned in this post, unless otherwise stated, relate to the Children Act 1989.