In a recent case called H v A (No 1) [2015] EWFC 58, the father was told that despite him having parental responsibility for his three children, the Court took the view that making the grades available to the father was not in the children’s best interests as he had already shown disregard for his parental responsibility for the children. The Court also highlighted the risk of accidental disclosure by the school.
In this case, the father had gone to prison for setting fire to his own car and then driving it into the home of the mother and the children. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years in custody. It was found that the mother and the children were lucky to escape.
Whilst in prison, the father was further arrested on suspicion of soliciting the murder of the mother and on suspicion of encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence, believing one would be committed, namely assault, theft, criminal damage and arson. It was alleged that the father attempted to solicit the murder of the mother by setting her house on fire. The father was not convicted of murder but was found guilty of encouraging or assisting the other offences alleged.
On behalf of the mother, it was argued that there was a risk of accidental disclosure by the school of information, and “any source of information” constituted an “unacceptable” risk of the father discovering the whereabouts of the mother and the children. The father’s continuing obsession with the mother demonstrated the extreme nature of such a risk.
In relation to the father’s parental responsibility, the Court also ordered that there was a declaration that the mother was under no obligation to inform or consult with the father in respect of her parental responsibility in respect of the children.
The Court was unable to take the father’s parental responsibility away fully, because the law did not allow the revocation of a father’s parental responsibility due to welfare grounds when the parents were married. With unmarried parents, this can be different. An initial attempt by the mother to pursue an argument that the provision was discriminatory, as it treated married and unmarried fathers differently was not pursued.