Understanding the Sole Responsibility Rule in UK Immigration Applications
- Amir Nikfekr
- 4 days ago
- 8 min read
Children who seek to apply as dependents of their parent's visa must meet specific requirements set out by the Home Office. Typically, the child must be under the age of 18, must not be leading an independent life and should have suitable care and accommodation in place.
Crucially, the child’s parents must each be either applying at the same time or already have permission to be in the UK on an eligible route. Sometimes there are circumstances where this is not possible, due to separation, divorce, or other factors. This often requires the parent to demonstrate either serious or compelling circumstances involved, or that they have “sole responsibility” for the child’s upbringing.
This post covers the meaning of sole responsibility, how it can be demonstrated, and three recent case studies to illustrate how the sole responsibility rule was successfully established in practice.
Where are the rules governing Sole Responsibility?
Appendix Children is where the rules and requirements for a dependant child can be found where the application concerns any of the following immigration routes:
Student
Graduate
Skilled Worker
Global Business Mobility
T2 Minister of Religion
Global Talent
High Potential Individual
Innovator Founder
International Sportsperson
Temporary Work
Hong Kong BN(O)
This list is not exhaustive. Separate rules apply to children applying for indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK under paragraphs 297-300 of the Immigration Rules or under Appendix FM.
What does 'Sole Responsibility' mean?
In its staff guidance for Appendix Children, the Home Office describes sole responsibility as a situation where:
"...one parent being unknown or having abandoned parental responsibility, with the other parent exercising sole control in setting and providing the day-to-day direction and care for the child’s welfare."
Similarly, in its caseworker guidance for Appendix FM, sole responsibility is described as a situation where:
“parental responsibility of a child, to all intents and purposes, rests chiefly with one parent."
We can also look to caselaw for assistance. In TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): sole responsibility [2006] UKAIT 49, the Tribunal set out the following questions to help determine whether sole responsibility should be established:
1. Who has "responsibility" for a child's upbringing and whether that responsibility is "sole" is a factual matter decided upon all the evidence. 2. The term "responsibility" in the Immigration Rules should not be understood as a theoretical or legal obligation but rather as a practical one which, in each case, looks to who in fact is exercising responsibility for the child. That responsibility may have been for a short duration in that the present arrangements may have begun quite recently. 3. "Responsibility" for a child's upbringing may be undertaken by individuals other than a child's parents and may be shared between different individuals: which may particularly arise where the child remains in its own country whilst the only parent involved in its life travels to and lives in the UK. 4. Wherever the parents are, if both parents are involved in the upbringing of the child, it will be exceptional that one of them will have sole responsibility. 5. If it is said that both are not involved in the child's upbringing, one of the indicators for that will be that the other has abandoned or abdicated his responsibility. In such cases, it may well be justified to find that that parent no longer has responsibility for the child. 6. ...the issue of sole responsibility is not just a matter between parents. So even if there is only one parent involved in the child's upbringing, that parent may not have sole responsibility. 7. ...day-to-day responsibility (or decision making) for the child's welfare may necessarily be shared with others (such as relatives or friends) because of the geographical separation between the parent and child. 8. The test is not whether anyone else has day-to-day responsibility but whether the parent has continuing control and direction of the child's upbringing including making all important decisions in the child's life. If not, responsibility is shared and so not "sole".
Is 'Sole Responsibility' the same as sole custody?
No. There is a distinction between sole responsibility and sole custody. While sole custody may support an argument for sole responsibility, it does not necessarily demonstrate it. This is because the other parent could still hold visitation rights or have financial obligations for the child, even if they are largely removed from the child's actual upbringing.
How is 'Sole Responsibility' assessed?
It is the responsibility of the parent to properly demonstrate sole responsibility using appropriate supporting evidence. There is no standard set of documents an application must rely on, but the makeup of a strong application will effectively demonstrate multiple components such as decision-making, financial and emotional support, and overall direction. Each case is likely to differ and will be assessed on the merits. In practice, sole responsibility may be shown through a combination of:
Legal documents (e.g. divorce agreement/consent order, custody order/child arrangement order)
School records (e.g. letter confirming who is responsible for the child, who is the emergency contact, and who attends parents meetings)
Medical records (e.g. where the child's registered address is, who has attended the hospital or medical practice with the child, and who is the responsible adult for the child).
Taken together, this evidence should be a good base from which to demonstrate genuine and continuous responsibility for the child.
Case Studies
The following two examples have been anonymised to protect the identity and personal information of our clients. All of the key facts and outcomes are unchanged.
Case 1 - Application for Entry Clearance
Summary
This case involved a Japanese mother who came to us with the intention of bringing her son to the UK. She had divorced several years prior and had moved to the UK for work in 2023. Since that time, her 8-year-old son had been looked after by his maternal grandmother in Tokyo. Due to the child's father not being involved in his life, her son's case could only succeed if she could successfully demonstrate sole responsibility. Her first attempt was made without legal advice and was refused on the basis that the divorce agreement granted the child's father visitation rights and required him to make monthly maintenance payments. At this stage, she came to us, and we prepared a fresh application, which ultimately led to a successful decision 7 days after we submitted the application.
Evidence of Sole Responsibility
After a full review of the documents used in the first application, we advised the client on where improvements could be made. The client had initially relied on only three items of evidence: (a) her divorce agreement, (b) a consent letter written by her, and (c) a consent letter written by the child's father. The Home Office scrutinised these documents and refused the application because it was not satisfied that sole responsibility could be demonstrated due to the father's apparent involvement. It also gave little weight to the parental letters, describing them as "self-declarations". In reality, the father had never made maintenance payments since the divorce and had abandoned all involvement in his son's life. In other words, the divorce agreement painted a different picture to that which actually existed, and the parents' accounts were disregarded.
In support of the new application, we first established the differences between post-divorce arrangements in Japan and the UK, with a focus on how the custodial parent (the parent who looks after the child) has the authority to make important decisions without the other parent's consent. To further strengthen the application, we formally instructed a family law expert in Japan to answer a series of tailored questions to determine the extent of unilateral decision-making and why the father's lack of involvement was legally supported by domestic law.
It was established that a father would not typically lose visitation rights even if he decided to never use them. Parents act as the statutory guardians of their minor children, and there is a high threshold to establish an abandonment of these rights. For the custodial parent to seek revocation of the other parent's guardianship rights would only be possible in instances where serious harm could be demonstrated. In other words, an application to revoke guardianship solely based on the non-custodial parent's failure to pay support or perform parental duties would not generally be supported by the court. Despite such a high bar for revocation - which would more directly support an argument for sole responsibility - domestic law did not prevent a custodial parent from making unilateral decisions concerning significant matters in the child's life, including relocation for study abroad.
In light of the father voluntarily absenting himself from parental responsibility, it was the view of the domestic family law expert that our client had a strong argument for sole responsibility from a practical viewpoint. Additional evidence was also provided, which proved our client had made regular transfers to her mother to cover his expenses since her relocation to the UK. We also sourced letters of support from the child's school teacher and doctor, both of whom independently confirmed our client was the parent on record.
Outcome
Ultimately, a comprehensive explanation containing all of these facts and documentation was presented to the Home Office in a new application. No further information was requested, and a successful decision was issued just 7 days after submission. This case demonstrates that sole responsibility may still be established even where the parent has been apart from their child for some time.
Case 2 - Application for Permission to Stay
Summary
This case involved a client whose two children were already in the UK on the Child Student route. Our client was separated from her husband and had moved to the UK on the Global Talent route in 2025. Her intention was to switch their permission to become dependants on her visa, which would enable them to settle in the UK after 3 years. The children's father was not involved in the children's lives since the separation and still lived in Cairo. Again, demonstrating sole responsibility was essential. We helped her achieve this in less than 8 weeks.
Evidence of Sole Responsibility
In contrast to Case 1, this client sought our advice before making an attempt to rely on sole responsibility. This allowed the case to be prepared without a need to address any existing issues.
We started by ascertaining the level of care currently provided by our client to her children, which comprised full oversight of their education, health, and recreational activities. The degree of involvement by their father was found to be negligible. He held a governmental role which heavily restricted his ability to leave his home country, and he was also the primary caretaker for his elderly parents, both of which were relevant factors. However, our client was still legally married to her husband, and there was no prospect of divorce proceedings being finalised in the foreseeable future. To address this point, we assessed cultural attitudes toward divorce and single motherhood in Egypt, which revealed a clear societal stigma much higher than that present in Western countries.
With both children being well into their teenage years, we also sought their own views on who looked after them, who they wanted to live with, and where they wanted to live. These factors would play a part in determining what is in their best interests, which, under safeguarding and welfare duties set out in Section 55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Home Office is compelled to afford primary consideration to. The children's school also provided confirmation that it was their mother who had paid all tuition fees since they enrolled.
Outcome
Ultimately, a comprehensive explanation containing all of these facts and documentation was presented to the Home Office in an application to switch the children from the Child Student route to dependants on their mother's Global Talent visa. No further information was requested, and a successful decision was issued within 8 weeks. This case demonstrates that divorce is not necessarily a requirement when assessing sole responsibility.
Conclusion
The most important element of any application seeking to demonstrate sole responsibility is a clear narrative of how the parent is the person who, in fact, is exercising responsibility, making important decisions for their child. Documentation should be used appropriately to support different aspects of the child's life, including education, healthcare, and any other relevant factors, such as religion. Where there are complicating factors, for instance, other people involved in the child's upbringing or a divorce agreement which permits the non-custodial parent visitation rights, it may be helpful to seek legal advice to ensure a strong, comprehensive argument is made.
