Parental Responsibility – will the proposed Victims and Courts bill go far enough?

By Emily D’Eyncourt Harvey

Solicitor

Family Law

22 May 2025

Insights News

Parental responsibility covers all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which a parent or individual has in relation to a child. This enables people with parental responsibility to make important decisions for a child such as where they should live, where they should go to school, what medical treatment they should receive and whether the child can be removed from the jurisdiction.

Parental responsibility will automatically be acquired by the mother of the child and the child’s father if he is married to (or in a civil partnership with) the mother. Unmarried fathers can acquire parental responsibility by subsequently marrying or becoming a civil partner of the mother, being registered as the child’s father, entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the mother, being appointed a guardian, or a parental responsibility order being made by the court.

In deciding whether to make a parental responsibility order the court will give the child’s welfare paramount consideration. The court will also have regard to other relevant factors, which include:

• the degree of commitment the father has shown towards the child;
• the degree of attachment that exists between the father and the child; and
• the father’s reasons for applying for an order.

It is usually assumed by the court that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare.

In Re M (A Child) the judge commented that ‘while there is no presumption, a parental responsibility order should normally be made on a father’s application, and it will be a rare case where it is not’.

What happens if parental responsibility is held by or is acquired by somebody who it then transpires is unfit to retain parental responsibility?

Parental responsibility comes to an end when a child reaches 18. It can also be terminated by an agreement of the relevant parties, upon a child being adopted, or if it is brought to an end by a court order.

This can put individuals and their children in difficult situations where the other parent is plainly unfit to hold parental responsibility- for instance where that individual has perpetrated serious criminal offences.

A parent who has parental responsibility who is convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of a partner or ex-partner with whom they have children will have their parental responsibility automatically suspended upon sentencing. When the law was changed to reflect this, the aim was to protect children where parents who have committed murder or voluntary manslaughter and would otherwise continue to have decision making power over that child’s life.

But what is the position where a parent who has parental responsibility is convicted of committing sexual offences against a child? This was the reality for the family that a recent BBC News story covered: Family criticises law change on paedophiles’ parental rights – BBC News, which appears to have received media attention, it might be opined as a result of recent changes to transparency in the Family Courts.

In such circumstances, there would be no choice but for the mother to make an application to the Court for the perpetrator’s parental responsibility to be removed. Not making an application would lead to a scenario where somebody convicted of serious sexual offences against a child could continue to make decisions about their own child’s life.

In deciding whether to revoke an individual’s parental responsibility, the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration and the court will also have to consider whether it is better for the child to terminate parental responsibility than not to do so. Case law also tells us that in deciding whether or not to remove parental responsibility the court tend to consider whether, if an application for acquiring parental responsibility were made in the present day, it would be granted in the circumstances.

On 10 May 2024, Rishi Sunak’s government set out that they proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would mean that when somebody who has raped a child is convicted and sentenced, their ability to make decisions about their own children’s life will be suspended. This was to apply in cases where the perpetrator has raped any child.

Without this provision, the current position is that while the courts can remove parental responsibility where it is in the best interests of a child, it will be necessary for the family to instigate and fund court proceedings to request such an order in order to protect their children. Court proceedings can cost tens of thousands of pounds. The automatic suspension of parental responsibility would remove the need to make this application to Court, because upon a relevant conviction being made by a Criminal Court, parental responsibility would be suspended as an automatic consequence.

A general election was of course called in July 2024, before the above was reflected in a change to the law. In the King’s Speech the new government set out that they would enact change to restrict parental responsibility for those who are convicted of sexual offences against children, but it appears that they will do so in a different manner compared to what was previously proposed.

Alex Davies- Jones, Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls, confirmed on 6 May 2025 the wording of the proposed for the Victims and Courts Bill. Legislative reform will therefore only remove parental responsibility where “a serious sexual offence [has been] committed against a child for whom the offender has parental responsibility”. This will only therefore cover instances where somebody has sexually abused their own child or stepchild. In these circumstances parental responsibility would automatically be revoked for all children that the perpetrator holds parental responsibility for. When the Crown Court sentence the perpetrator they will automatically make a Prohibited Steps Order (an Order that would usually be made by the Family Court, to restrict somebody’s exercise of parental responsibility) to deal with this. This will not however cover instances where the perpetrator has committed sexual offences against another child. If a perpetrator has sexually abused a child that is not their own and for which they do not hold parental responsibility, parental responsibility for their own child would remain in tact, unless the concerned parties made an application to the court for it to be revoked, at great cost to them.

The present government appear therefore to be taking a different approach to their successors. They have in one way narrowed when the provision will apply- i.e. it will only apply when a sexual abuse conviction for a parties’ own child is made, but at the same time the provision has been widened. It will apply when an individual is convicted of a wider range of serious sexual offences against children, rather than only where a conviction of child rape is made.

The new government’s proposed draft legislation will also only remove parental responsibility where somebody has been sentenced to at least four years in prison. While this will help to improve the position whereby an automatic suspension of parental responsibility will take place for offenders who sexually abuse their own children and receive a prison sentence of four years or more without the need to go to court to secure this, this will not cover families or children where the child in question was not the subject of abuse, nor was the perpetrator convicted of a prison sentence of over four years. This will leave those families with no option but to make an application to court and to incur the cost and stress of doing so if they are to revoke the parental responsibility of a parent who has been convicted of sexual offences against a child. Is this the intended consequence of the legislation proposed?

The Victims and Courts Bill has only recently been introduced to Parliament. It has had two readings in the House of Commons (the second of which was on 20 May). Shabana Mahmood (the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) speaking in the House of Commons made clear that “we are in novel territory” and that “we have a duty to take a balanced approach”. She acknowledged that this is “the beginning of legal change and not the end”. She warned of concerns of overburdening the courts with challenges were provisions too far reaching.

Robert Jenrick, the shadow Secretary of State, challenged that “the devil is in the detail” and that given how limited parliamentary time is, all change that is necessary in this area should be made now. He queried whether it is right that if an individual had perpetrated serious sexual abuse against their neighbour’s child, they should retain parental responsibility and decision making powers for their own possibly very young child. He also queried whether it could be right that somebody who has committed an offence and was sentenced to 3 years and 11 months (which would still by all accounts be a gravely serious sexual offence against a child) should retain their parental responsibility for their child.

He also pointed out that conversely, if an individual is exonerated of a charge, the proposed legislation would not cease to have effect. The individual would therefore be barred from having parental responsibility for their child and their only recourse would be to bring their own application to court to recover their parental responsibility. Preventing individuals having to make an application to the Family Court at their own cost and burden is the very thing the proposed legislation is seeking to prevent.

Shabana Mahmood makes clear that she wishes to work collaboratively with those across the sector and while the proposed legislation is yet to reach the House of Lords there is still a long way to go before it might be expected that the bill receive Royal Asset. I, like many others, will follow with interest and concern the progress of the bill and the wording of the legislation that the government propose introducing.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this article, please contact our Family team here. They would be happy to discuss queries with you and answer any relating questions you may have.

Disclaimer: General Information Provided Only
Please note that the contents of this article are intended solely for general information purposes and should not be considered as legal advice. We cannot be held responsible for any loss resulting from actions or inactions taken based on this article.