Domestic Violence: Restricting Parental Responsibility

Maria Kitsiou

Domestic violence, coercive control and restricting parental responsibility

Parental responsibility (PR) is an inherent legal right for most birth parents, but it is possible for a parent to lose those legal rights and responsibilities in serious cases of violence and abuse.

Any parent who is the victim or perpetrator of domestic violence or abuse is reminded that judges can severely restrict a parent’s PR. A recent decision [Re C (A Child) (No Contact) [2024] EWFC 366] helpfully considered the circumstances in which restricting parental responsibility were necessary and proportionate to protect those at risk.

At Osbornes Law, our expert family and children solicitors understand how emotive issues of PR and the safety and wellbeing of a child may become. Our specialist team are used to taking swift and robust action to support parents seeking to protect their children from harm.

Parental responsibility

Parental responsibility is defined as “all of the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authorities which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property” (section 3 Children Act 1989). Those rights etc range from making decisions around the child’s health and medical treatment, their living arrangements and education – to religious upbringing and social interactions.

So, who has PR? The birth mother automatically acquires PR. The father has PR if married to the mother when the child was born or (if unmarried) he is named as father on the birth certificate.

However, the courts can restrict or even remove a parent’s PR if exceptional cases justify it. Usually, PR would be restricted where a child is at serious risk of harm or neglect from a parent. The courts can do this through Prohibited Steps Orders and Specific Issue Orders under s8(1) Children Act.

What happened in this case?

These were private children proceedings involving an 8-year-old boy (C), heard against the background of violence, domestic abuse and coercion on the part of the father. He had served part of a 3½-year prison sentence for assaulting the mother, C and another child; and threatening to kill the mother. He had also admitted to controlling and coercive behaviour towards M over a 4-year period.

An indefinite restraining order prevented the father from any contact with either M or the children (unless organised and supervised by social services); but that didn’t stop him applying for contact with C before his release from prison on licence.

The mother, who told the court she had implemented extensive security measures at home, said the father had breached the restraining order and wanted the court to restrict his PR.

As with any decision to be made concerning a child, the child’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration. Also, there is a presumption that a parent’s involvement in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare unless it can be shown it puts the child at risk of harm.

After hearing evidence from both parties as well as expert evidence, the judge decided to remove the father’s parental responsibility. He found that C’s physical, emotional and educational needs were being met by M; and he was “settled and secure”.

However, C was also suffering severe anxiety and sleep difficulties directly as a result of being exposed to domestic abuse and the trauma from his father’s conduct. It was also clear on the evidence – and given C’s own wishes and feelings – that contact with his father was not in his best interests.

The judge ruled that C should live with M (who was “a good mother”) and he would have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the father.

Significantly, he also ordered that the father should not exercise PR in relation to C and imposed a specific issue order and prohibited steps orders to that effect. Whilst such orders are rare, the judge said this was a necessary and proportionate order in the circumstances.

The court also made a further order preventing the father from making any further applications under the Children Act (unless a judge gives permission) until C reaches 18.

A copy of the judge’s order setting out those restrictions would be disclosed to organisations such as C’s school and GP, the local authority and any other professionals working with C.

How we can help

Our specialist family and children lawyers can support you in matters involving parental responsibility and the protection of your child. For early advice, please contact us by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811