A mother has failed in her attempt to revoke her ex-husband’s parental responsibility for their two children. 

Her case had centred on the different rights available to married and unmarried fathers. 

The Children Act 1989 empowers a court to revoke the parental responsibility of an unmarried, but not a married father. The mother argued that this was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The court heard that the couple’s marriage had broken down because of the father’s abusive and controlling behaviour.   

After they separated in 2013, the father’s behaviour worsened to the point where the local authority made child protection plans and, on police advice, the mother moved the children to a confidential location and changed their names.  

On the basis that any ongoing involvement by the father in the children’s lives would be intrusive and intimidating, the mother sought to have his parental responsibility revoked.  

However, although the court was empowered to revoke the parental responsibility of unmarried fathers, it had no power to revoke a married father’s parental responsibility.   

The mother therefore applied for a declaration of incompatibility. She argued that the law discriminated against married mothers (and the children of married parents) where the father’s conduct was such that, had the parents been unmarried, his parental responsibility could justifiably have been revoked.   

The judge made extensive findings of violent, abusive, controlling and dangerous behaviour by the father. She made prohibited steps and specific issue orders giving the mother the right to exercise parental responsibility unilaterally, without reference to the father.   

She also prohibited the father from having any contact with the children. However, she declined to make a declaration of incompatibility. 

The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. It held that a mother’s inability to apply for the revocation of her husband’s parental responsibility did amount to discrimination based on marital (or civil partnership) status.  However, it was justified by the legitimate aim of prioritising marriage and civil partnership over less formalised relationships and maintaining the principle that a married father should have irrevocable parental authority and responsibility.