Visit JCPCUKSC/2026/0076
•
FAMILY
Re P (Loss of Parental Responsibility)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0076
Parties
Appellant(s)
Mother
Respondent(s)
Father 2
Father 1
Child (by their Guardian)
Issue
Can the court make a declaration of non-parentage where there is a 50% probability that the individual named on the child’s birth certificate is the child’s biological father?
Facts
This appeal arises out of private law proceedings concerning the care of child P. At the time when P’s conception must have occurred, the child’s mother, MP, had engaged in sexual intercourse with each of two identical male twins, TP1 and TP2. As a result, DNA testing can establish that one of the twins is the child’s biological father, but it is impossible to say with certainty which of them it is. The court became involved in deciding arrangements for the care of P and P’s younger sibling. It is accepted that TP1 is the father of the younger child. The court was asked to determine as regards P whether a declaration of paternity should be made holding that either TP1 or TP2 is the child’s father and whether it was possible to confer parental responsibility on either of them. TP1 is registered as the father on the child P’s birth certificate. By the time of the hearing, MP was in a closer relationship with TP2. MP and TP2 therefore sought a declaration that TP2 was P’s father and that any parental responsibility that TP1 may have had should be terminated. TP1 sought to retain his registration as father on the birth certificate and sought to be treated for all purposes as P’s father. The judge, HHJ Reardon, found that it was not possible to establish the paternity of P, and that the probability of either twin being P’s father was exactly 50%. As neither TP1 nor TP2 were able to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was the child’s father, the judge refused all applications for a declaration. The judge then determined the future arrangements for the children, which provided for them to spend time with all three adults, but their primary base was to be with MP. TP2 appealed to the Court of Appeal, supported by MP but opposed by TP1. There was also an appeal on behalf of the child, seeking greater clarity of the position as to paternity. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. MP now appeals to the Supreme Court. The hearing before the Court of Appeal was conjoined with appeals concerning two other children, known as Re M and Re J, due to similar issues arising. The appellant in Re M has also appealed to the Supreme Court, which has been linked with this appeal.
Date of issue
4 June 2026
Case origin
PTA
