You’ll often see this topic described as ‘stripping’ or ‘removing’ an abusive father’s parental rights but parental responsibility (PR) can’t often simply be taken away – although where the circumstances justify it, PR can be restricted or effectively suspended. There are quite a few changes in the law going through at present and the landscape can look confusing, so here is a brief guide and update. We have written about losing PR in 2018 – When can PR be removed from a terrible parent? and 2024 – Paedophiles to be stripped of parental rights? And other failed legislative amendments
First, a reminder of the basic law on PR that can currently be found in the Children Act 1989 and case law – then we’ll summarise the current position on:
- Proposed changes to the law to restrict PR of a father who has killed the child’s mother
- Proposed changes to restrict PR of a father who has committed certain serious offences
The aim when introducing ‘parental responsibility’ in the 1989 Act was to ensure that parenting was seen as continually shared by parents even if they split up.
A birth mother automatically has PR. This PR can’t be removed by the court because of her behaviour. The only way a mother can lose PR is through adoption or surrogacy.
The situation isn’t so straightforward for a father. Most of the law about fathers also applies to a second female parent where a child was conceived through fertility treatment. But we’re just saying fathers here for simplicity.
Fathers with PR:
A father who is married to or in a civil partnership with the mother when the child is born automatically has PR
As with a birth mother, PR cannot be removed from a married father because of his behaviour. The only way a married father could lose PR is through adoption, or evidence coming to light that he is not a biological parent, so the presumption that he was the father is cancelled and the child’s birth registration should be changed.
There is currently a case before the European Court of Human Rights where it’s being argued on behalf of a mother in England that this situation is discriminatory against married women. Scotland and most European countries have laws that can remove a married father’s parental rights because of his risk to his wife or children. This is an appeal from the decision in Re A (Parental Responsibility) [2023] EWCA Civ 689. The mother is called ‘MZ’ in this article by Caoilfhionn Gallagher.
It will probably be some time before the European Court make a decision on this.
Ways to acquire PR
A father who was not married or a civil partner can get PR by one of the following:
- Marrying the mother, or entering into a civil partnership, after the child is born
- Being named as the father on the birth certificate
- Making a PR agreement with the mother
- Obtaining a child arrangements order from the court that the child live with him
- Obtaining a PR order from the court
A step father can acquire PR through a PR agreement made with the mother and father or through adopting the child with the mother. Although in fact the court is able make a PR order in favour of anyone who is named in a contact order as someone the child should have contact with, this power isn’t often used.
When the court makes a child arrangements order saying that the child should live with someone who doesn’t have PR already, the order automatically gives that person PR. But if that person isn’t a parent, this PR only lasts as long as the ‘live with’ order lasts. If a parent gets PR by a PR order, that PR lasts unless it is specifically removed by the court.
Removal of PR because the ‘father’ registered is not the biological father
In a very recent Court of Appeal judgment, it was confirmed that someone registered in error as a father, because he wasn’t the biological father, even if he had taken on a parental role – the ‘psychological father’ – has never acquired PR (Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344)
Removal or restriction of PR by the family court
Disputes between separated parents are often settled in court with one or both parents being restricted in some way, although the aim is to make child arrangements that are in the child’s welfare interests, not to penalise a parent.
In exceptional cases, the family court has powers to stop an abusive parent from exercising their PR at all.
If the parents weren’t married, the court can remove the father’s PR under section 4(2)(a) Children Act 1989.
However, as noted above, if the parents were married, that section doesn’t apply. Instead, the court can make a prohibited steps order that the father can’t exercise his PR in the future. The more common prohibited steps orders are narrower, to address a particular dispute, for example that the child shouldn’t be moved out of their current school.
For example, in the case of a married couple in H v A (No 1) [2015] EWHC 58 (Fam), where the father had tried to kill the mother and their children, Mr Justice MacDonald made an order prohibiting him from taking any steps in the exercise of his parental responsibility for either of the two children throughout their whole childhood. In D v E (Termination of Parental Responsibility) [2021] EWFC 37, where a highly dangerous father had PR through being named on the child’s birth certificate, MacDonald J made an order terminating PR in the child’s best interests.
The orders in these two cases were supplemented by section 91(14) barring orders to prevent the fathers easily making future Children Act applications to a family court.
Suspending the PR of a parent who has killed the child’s other parent – ‘Jade’s Law’
This new law can be found in section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 but it hasn’t yet been brought into force, as mentioned in this recent BBC article. It was announced in the House of Lords on 10 March that it will be implemented by the end of December 2026.
Jade Ward was married to her four children’s father when he killed her in 2021. Despite being sentenced to 25 years in prison, Jade’s family were greatly distressed to learn he still held PR and could contact them from prison. This led to the campaign for ‘Jade’s Law’, now in section 18.
Section 18 originally referred to ‘restricting’ PR. What it actually does is ensure that when the parent is sentenced, the Crown Court makes a prohibited steps order that the parent cannot exercise PR without first getting consent from a family court. It will be compulsory to make this order if the parent has been convicted of murder but there is more variation if the conviction is manslaughter. It’s possible for the order to be later varied or discharged by a family court. The order will apply to children aged under 16.
There will also be a duty on the local authority to apply to the family court for a prompt review of any order like this relating to children living in their area. It was explained in the recent House of Lords debate on the Victims and Courts Bill that the suspension of PR by the Crown Court will be automatic – for children’s immediate protection – but without the Crown Court judge having to consider the individual child’s welfare. The circumstances will at a later point be reviewed by a family court in accordance with its welfare role.
So, rather than PR being ‘stripped’, as the media tend to describe the new law, Jade’s Law means that PR is suspended until a child is 16, unless a family court makes a different decision or the convicted parent manages to succeed in an application to the family court for this to change.
Jade’s Law will apply to any parent who had PR and killed the other parent, whether or not they were married, and whether they are men or women. This means that it will not be up to the victim’s family to have to apply to the family court to protect the children; the Crown Court will stop the convicted parent exercising PR. However, this section in itself doesn’t have any effect on the responsibilities of any other person with PR (for example an extended family member who is caring for the child under a child arrangements order). They would still have a duty to consult the convicted parent about major life decisions. It may be that when making the child arrangements order or at the point of reviewing the order made by the Crown Court, the Family Court would order that this duty was modified or suspended.
Section 18 will be inserted into the Children Act 1989 as new sections 10A and 10B.
PR where a parent is convicted of sexual offences
Clause 3 of the Victims and Courts Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, will restrict the PR of a parent who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against a child (not necessarily their own child, but against any child). This means that a person on the Sex Offenders Register who is restricted from being with other children will also be restricted from being with his own.
Clause 4 restricts the PR of a parent of a child who was conceived through rape. This reflects aspects of the highly publicised campaign by Sammy Woodhouse back in 2018.
Similarly to Jade’s Law, the Crown Court will in cases like this make a prohibited steps order that suspends PR when the parent is sentenced and this will apply however they acquired PR, whether married or not. The details of procedures are similar to Jade’s Law.
These provisions will be added to the Children Act 1989 as sections 10C and 10D.
It has been pointed out that the prohibited steps orders envisaged in clauses 3 and 4 will apply to any children the parent already has when he is convicted, but would not apply to any children of his that might be born after the conviction – Proposed law does not protect children born to convicted paedophiles, Lords to hear. The article said that an amendment about this was to be put in the House of Lords, where it has now been explained that, for policy reasons, the welfare of any children who may be born in the distant future won’t be subject to the automatic restriction. However the clauses are to be amended to ensure that they do apply to children who may have been conceived before the criminal trial, but born after the parent is convicted of the offence. This seems unlikely, given how long Crown Court waiting times are, but it was seen as theoretically possible.
How soon will the law change?
It’s disappointing that Jade’s Law is taking so long to implement. Some bereaved families are still having to make their own applications, for example Linda Westcarr, who we wrote about in November – Court lifts grandmother’s anonymity at her request.
Now the government has indicated that Jade’s Law will come into force in December 2026, potentially, the new sections anticipated in the Victims and Courts Bill could be brought in at the same time.
On a related issue, the ‘presumption of involvement of both parents’ added to the Children Act in 2014 has not yet been repealed by Parliament. The clause to repeal it is contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, currently going through the House of Commons, where it was dealt with briefly and was virtually unopposed. However, that Bill is at an earlier stage in Parliament than the Victims and Courts Bill.
Image: Houses of Parliament, Wikimedia Commons
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page