Re Rh (A Minor) (Parental Responsibility)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1998 |
| Year | 1998 |
| Date | 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Parental responsibility – Unmarried parents living together then separating – Father applying for parental responsibility order – Father found to have caused injuries to son indicating deliberate cruelty – Judge refusing to make parental responsibility order – Whether decision justified.
The mother, who had two children by a former partner, began to live with the father in 1993. They had a son, R, who was born in 1994. On an occasion in 1994 when the father had sole care of them, he hit one of the mother’s children causing bruising to his face. The mother and father separated in 1995. They remained on good terms and R spent every Friday night with the father. In September 1995 R returned from a contact visit showing considerable distress, and with a severe bruise on his right cheek and a scratch on his left cheek. On examination, a doctor found disturbing bruising to R’s chest, trunk, inner and outer ear, and along the shaft of his penis and on the scrotum. The father denied causing those injuries. R continued to enjoy excellent supervised contact with his father who applied for parental responsibility, residence and contact orders. The judge found that the father had caused the injuries to R and that they were of a nature that suggested deliberate cruelty and sadism. He made an order for supervised contact but refused to make a residence order on the basis that the father had abused R, had not been truthful about what had happened, and had not shown the capacity to be responsible necessary for the grant of a parental responsibility order. The father appealed from the refusal to make a parental responsibility order.
Held — The grant of a parental responsibility order declared the status of the applicant as the father of the child in question. Consideration of the degree of commitment shown towards the child, the degree of attachment already existing between the child and the father, and the reasons of the father in applying for the order were the starting points for the making of an order. However, they were not the only relevant factors. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 applied to parental responsibility orders and the welfare of the child was therefore paramount. The appropriateness of an order had to be considered on the facts of each individual case. If, in all the circumstances, there were factors adverse to the father sufficient to tip the balance against the order proposed, it would not be right to make the order. In the present case, the father had demonstrated commitment, the child was attached to him, and he had genuine reasons for fostering the relationship but he had caused
injuries to two children. The injuries to his own son, R, were found by the judge to indicate deliberate cruelty with an element of sadism. He had been found by the judge to be unfit to be trusted to see his son unsupervised, and had made no attempt to come to terms with what he had done. Consequently, the judge was fully justified in deciding that a man who had behaved like that to his son was not fit to have parental responsibility for him. The appeal would be dismissed.
Cases referred to in judgmentC B (a minor) (parental responsibility order), Re[1993] 1 FCR 440.
G (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1994] 2 FCR 1037, CA.
H (minors) (rights of putative fathers) (no 2), Re [1991] FCR 361; sub nom Re H (minors) (local authority: parental rights) [1991] Fam 151, [1991] 2 All ER 185, [1991] 2 WLR 763, CA.
Hereford and Worcester CC v D [1991] FCR 56, [1991] Fam 14, [1991] 2 All ER 177, [1991] 2 WLR 753.
P (minors) (parental responsibility: change of name), Re [1997] 3 FCR 739, CA.
P (terminating parental responsibility), Re[1995] 3 FCR 753.
S (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1995] 3 FCR 225, CA.
T (a minor) (parental responsibility and contact), Re[1993] 1 FCR 973, CA.
AppealThe father of a young child, R, appealed with leave from the decision of Judge R Smyth made on 27 February 1997, whereby he refused the father’s application for a parental responsibility order on the basis that the father had abused the child, and had been untruthful about what had happened to the child, and had therefore not shown the capacity to be responsible necessary for the grant of an order. The facts are set out in the judgment of Butler-Sloss LJ.
Caroline Baker (instructed by Carvers, Birmingham) for the father.
Anne Smallwood (instructed by Challinors Lyon Clark, Birmingham) for the mother.
Cur adv vult
29 January 1998. The following judgments were delivered.
BUTLER-SLOSS LJ.1. The appellant is the father of a little boy, R, born on 4 June, 1994. He is not married to R’s mother and before Judge Smyth he applied for a residence order, extended contact and a parental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re G Children
...[2014] 1 FLR 339. R (Parental Responsibility), Re[2011] EWHC 1535 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 1132. RH (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1998] 2 FCR 89, [1998] 1 FLR 855, S (A Minor) (Parental Responsibility), Re[1995] 3 FCR 225, [1995] 2 FLR 648, CA. T v T (shared residence)[2010] EWCA Civ 1......
-
Re P (Parental Responsibility)
...All ER 185, CA. P (minors) (parental responsibility: change of name), Re[1997] 3 FCR 739, CA. RH (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1998] 2 FCR 89, S (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1995] 3 FCR 225, CA. AppealThe father appealed with leave from the decision of Judge Hallon sitt......
-
Re M (Handicapped Child: Parental Responsibility)
...1 FLR 214, CA. P (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1998] 3 FCR 98, [1998] 2 FLR 96, CA. RH (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1998] 2 FCR 89, [1998] 1 FLR 855, S (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1995] 3 FCR 564. ApplicationsThe claimant made applications to the court pursu......
-
Re D (Contact and Parental Responsibility: Lesbian Mothers and Known Father)
...authority: parental rights) (No 3) [1991] 2 All ER 185, [1991] Fam 151, [1991] 1 FLR 214, CA. RH (a minor) (parental responsibility), Re[1998] 2 FCR 89, [1998] 1 FLR 855, CA. ApplicationThe father applied for parental responsibility of the child, D, who lived with a lesbian couple, Ms A and......