Parental responsibility

Meaning and scope of parental responsibility

Parental responsibility is defined in section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) as all the rights, duties, powers and responsibilities and authority that, by law, a parent of a child has in relation to the child and their property.

Parental responsibility is commonly accepted to include, but is not limited to:

  1. the right and duty to care for the child and provide a home

  2. to determine where the child should live

  3. to ensure that if the child is of compulsory school age, they receive appropriate education

  4. to appoint a guardian

  5. to consent to medical treatment or obtain appropriate treatment for the child

  6. to name the child

  7. to remove the child from the jurisdiction

See Practice Note: The meaning and scope of parental responsibility and Precedent: Parental responsibility—client guide.

The position at birth

Parental responsibility will be acquired automatically by:

  1. a child's father and mother who were married to each other, or from 2 December 2019 civil partners of each other at the time of the child’s birth

  2. a

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents