The Telegraph report says that: "The ruling means that the child now effectively has two fathers and that the person who raised him, referred to only as Mr A, has the same rights as the boy's biological parent." I'm not sure about this, as the report doesn't explain whether the natural father has parental responsibility - if he does not, then he does not have the same rights.
* * * * *
Update: The full report of this case, Re A (A Child: Joint Residence/Parental Responsibility) [2008] EWCA Civ 867 can now be found here. The report confirms that the boy's natural father "wished to play no significant part in [his] life". I think that what may have confused the Telegraph reporter into thinking that there was no limit to the number of parents that a child can have was Sir Mark Potter's confirmation that under the Children Act there is no limit upon the number of persons who may have parental responsibility for the same child at the same time.

I concur entirely. The biological father is not mentioned and presumably is not involved. The case certainly does not justify the claim that there is 'no limit' to the number of fathers a child can have. Assuming that only one biological father is possible, I would think it difficult for a mother to pursuade more than one man that he is the father.
ReplyDeleteI have a personal interest in this case as I was a victim of paternity fraud myself and the truth didn't emerge until my son was nearly 10. He is now nearly 13 and I haven't seen him since he was 8. I hope this case ensures that more children are able to maintain relationships with the men they have always regarded as their fathers, particularly where being parented by the biological father is not an option.
Agreed. Such men are often likely to make better fathers than the natural fathers.
ReplyDelete