About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] NIFam 12
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI High Court
• Judge:
  Judge David McFarland

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David McFarland determined that “AB, by virtue of his conduct, could never have lawfully acquired parental responsibility for the child. To adopt and adjust the language of Lord Denning — no court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by this perjury as it unravels everything. To hold otherwise would be an affront to justice.”

Background

The mother and AB had been in a turbulent relationship until 2017. The mother then entered a new relationship with CD, and the child was born out of that relationship in 2018.

During her pregnancy, the mother engaged with child protection measures which resulted in the mother being advised that CD had a criminal history including offending involve child sexual abuse. The relationship between the mother and CD ended and she reunited with AB.

Both the mother and AB knew that AB was not the father of the child, and that CD was the father.

Nonetheless, AB attended at the child’s birth and at the Registrar General’s office 38 days later, where he was falsely registered as the child’s father pursuant to a statutory declaration.

The birth certificate issued with the child’s registered name incorporating AB’s first name and his surname as the child’s middle and surnames.

A few years later, a family court declared CD as the father of the child following DNA testing. The Registrar General, having received a court order and upon CD attending to complete further forms, withdrew the previous birth certificate and re-issued a certificate including CD as the father of the child.

The Trust sought a care order under the Children (NI) Order 1995 (CO) in respect of the child. Both CD and the mother sought determinations as to inter alia whether CD had parental responsibility for the child and sought to revoke AB’s parental responsibility if so.

The High Court

Mr Justice McFarland firstly considered whether CD had parental responsibility and his standing to bring an application to remove AB’s parental responsibility.

The judge had regard to article 7(3) and (4) of the CO, which provides that a person who has acquired parental responsibility under paragraphs 7(1), (1ZA), or (1A) shall cease to have same if the court so orders and that the court could so order upon the application of a person with parental responsibility for the child, or the child himself.

The court then examined article 7(1)(a) of the CO, which provides that an unmarried father shall acquire parental responsibility if he becomes registered as the child’s father, with ‘registered’ meaning registered under article 14(3)(a), (b) or (c) of the Births and Deaths Registration (NI) Order 1976. 

The court outlined that article 14(3)(a), (b) or (c) relate to the registration of the birth of a child to unmarried parents pursuant to statutory declarations as to parentage.

CD’s re-registration as the father of the child was carried out under article 19A of the 1976 Order, and the court rejected that it could ignore the wording of the CO to read across provisions so that CD’s re-registration could have the same effect as an article 14(3)(a)–(c) registration, noting: “The clear intention of the legislature was to limit the automatic acquisition of parental responsibility of unmarried fathers.”

Accordingly, Mr Justice McFarland determined that CD did not acquire parental responsibility for the child on re-registration of the birth and therefore could not apply to the court for an order revoking AB’s parental responsibility.

However, the judge found that CD did have sufficient standing as a party to the CO proceedings brought by the Trust, and that his lack of parental responsibility would only have an impact should the court determine that AB acquired parental responsibility.

The court rejected that AB had become the “psychological father” of the child at only 38 days post-birth, and found that in any event, article 14 was intended to refer only to genetic fathers or persons granted the status of father by statute and that AB and the mother had perjured themselves when filling out the statutory declarations for the Registrar General.

The court thus moved to consider whether the application of public policy principles could operate to prevent AB from acquiring parental responsibility in those circumstances.

Mr Justice McFarland remarked: “Lord Mansfield expounded the principles of public policy in Holman v Johnston (1775) 1 Cowp 341 at 343 — ‘no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.’ This is encapsulated in the maxim ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ — action does not arise from a dishonourable cause.”

Recognising that “extreme caution” should be applied when considering policy issues, the court was satisfied that, where the “registration of births requires certainty as the document issued by the Registrar General will be used for a variety of important reasons relating to the child’s life continuing into their adulthood… anyone who commits perjury which includes the wilful giving of false information and the intention to import false information into a birth certificate cannot be allowed to benefit from that deception”.

Mr Justice McFarland also found that the mother was “equally complicit in the criminal actions by her own conduct”, but gained nothing from it as parental responsibility always vests in the mother under the CO.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court found that AB could never have lawfully acquired parental responsibility and made the declaration sought by CD and the mother.

A Health and Social Care Trust v A Mother, AB and CD [2025] NIFam 12