The court considered an application for an order for parental rights under the 1967 Act.
Held: Ward J said: ‘Can this (father) show that he is the father of the child, not in the biological sense but in the sense that he has established or is likely to establish such a real family tie with the [child] that he should now be accorded the corresponding legal tie? It would be easier to ask under the Children Act 1989, but the essence is the same: ‘has he behaved, or will he behave, with parental responsibility for this child?’ These real links are not established simply on proof of, or acknowledgement of, paternity.’
Judges:
Ward J
Citations:
[1991] Fam 14
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re D (A Child) CA 26-Mar-2014
F appealed against the removal of his parental responsibility for his son. M and F were not married, but F had been named on the birth certificate. He had later been convicted of sexual assaults against two daughters of M by an earlier relationship. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.523341