S, Re (Parental Responsibility) [2025] EWFC 324 (B) (13 June 2025) - Key insights

Two of our barristers, Bella Tait and Kim Okell, appeared in a recently reported case: Re X (Parental Responsibility: Motivation) [2025] EWFC OJ 324

This recent Family Court decision offers valuable insight into applications for Parental Responsibility (PR) and the importance of motivation and welfare in such applications.

The case concerned a father’s application for PR following earlier proceedings about contact with his child, which concluded with no contact being ordered. Despite the father’s desire to secure formal legal status as the child’s parent, the court refused his application due to serious concerns about his motivation and background.

The judgment highlighted:

• The father’s previous criminal convictions, including violent behaviour which exposed the child to harm (notably, throwing a hammer through the grandmother’s window while the child was present).

• Breaches of a restraining order protecting the child’s mother, with the father still under probation at the time of the hearing.

• Concerns that the father’s true motivation for seeking PR was to destabilise the child’s current placement with their grandmother.

While the legal threshold for obtaining PR is usually considered low, even in cases where there is no direct contact, this judgment underscores that the court’s paramount consideration remains the child’s welfare. The judge’s findings serve as a reminder that PR is not a “right” to be demanded, but a responsibility to be exercised in the child’s best interests.

This case stands as a useful summary of the legal framework surrounding PR applications and an illustration of the rare circumstances where the court will refuse PR due to the seriousness of underlying concerns about the applicant’s conduct and motivation.

Written by Bella Tait, Consultant Barrister at Unit Chambers.