Parental Responsibility Order (CA86)

4. What are the possible ways Mr. C could acquire Parental Responsibility for A, highlighting the relevant legislation?

Section 3(1) CA89 defines parental responsibility as: 'All the rights, duties, powers, responsibility and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and [her] property' (CA89, s.3 (1)). Miss B’s role is to look after the welfare of A, provide a home, protect and meet A’s needs (ref) (https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility), Since Miss B and Mr. C are not married, Miss B automatically has parental responsibility for A from birth. However, someone such as Mr. C would fall under a category of a parent without parental responsibility or an unmarried

C can apply for Parental Responsibility Order (CA89, s. 4(1) (b)). In Re X(Parental Responsibility: Children in Care)[2000] 2 All ER 66, the fact that the children were subject to interim care orders did not prevent the mother from entering into a parental responsibility agreement with the child's father. If Miss C fails to reach an agreement with Mr. C then he could apply to the court for Parental Responsibility Order (CA89, s. 4(1) (a)), (Brammer, 2015:205). There are three elements in the Re H (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No.3) [1991] Fam 151 applications for parental responsibility. In Mr. C’s case, he will have to show his level of commitment to A, the level of attachment between him and A and his reasons for applying for parental

C and D should be aware that the Sexual Offence Act 2003 (SOA2003) makes it an offence to have sexual activity with a child (i.e., under 16 years). These offenses apply to offenders over 18 years of age, but also to those under 18 with lesser penalties (SOA2003, s.13 (1)). An under 18-year-old could be sentenced up six months prison sentence under summary conviction, or up to 5 years on indictment (SOA2003, s.13 (2)). Home Office guidance published shortly after the SOA2003 makes clear that there was no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16, where the couple both consent and are of a similar age unless the situation involves abuse or exploitation (Home Office,