“The purpose of a parental responsibility order is to give the unmarried father a ‘locus standi’ in the child’s life by conferring on him the rights which would have been automatically his by right had he been married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth. The making of such an order would enable the father to contribute to the promotion of his daughter’s welfare and to play the natural part of her father in her future, although it did not give the father any rights of either residence or contact; and in the present case, the child remained in the care of the local authority, with contact being at its discretion.”
Lord Justice Wall (in Re S (Parental Responsibility) 1995 2 FLR 648):
“There is another important emphasis I would wish to make. I have heard up and down the land, psychiatrists tell me how important it is that children grow up with a good self-esteem and how much they need to have a favourable positive image of the absent parent. It seems to me important, therefore, wherever possible, to ensure that the law confers upon a committed father that stamp of approval, lest the child grow up with some belief that he is in some way disqualified from fulfilling his role and that the reason for the disqualification is something inherent which will be inherited the child, making her struggle to find her own identity all the more fraught”
Here are some examples of cases when PR was refused:
• Re M (Contact: Parental Responsibility) [2001] 2 FLR 342 : it would be too stressful to mother and undermine her ability to care for their child. The child was severely disabled, with cerebral palsy affecting all 4 limbs, virtually blind & suffered from seizures. The relationship between the parents was highly acrimonious. The father accused mother’s new partner of sexual abuse without any foundation and violence. The risk was that he would misuse PR;
• Re H (Parental Responsibility) [1998] FLR 855: the father had injured his child with extensive bruising to the body including the child’s penis and had bruised another child by hitting him. His behaviour was described as cruel with an element of sadism;
• Re P (Parental Responsibility) [1998] 2 FLR 96: father, aged 78, was found to be in possession of obscene photographs of children. He had met the mother when he was in his 60s and she was 15. He also made false allegations of sexual abuse and had videoed the child while he was encouraging her to talk about it;
• Re P(A Minor) (Parental Responsibiity) [1997 2 FLR 722]: father in prison for a long sentence following a string of robbery offences.
