By Alison Green, Partner and Head of the Family and Relationship Team

One of ITV’s latest psychological dramas, Playing Nice, has captivated audiences with its emotional and morally complex storyline.

While the psychological and ethical dilemmas are front and centre, the legal implications of such a case are equally fascinating.

The series is based on JP Delaney’s bestselling novel and follows Pete and Maddie, who have been lovingly raising their son Theo, only to discover that he was accidentally switched at birth with David, who was their  biological child being raised by another couple, Miles and Lucy.

Where Pete and Maddie are portrayed as warm and nurturing, Miles is portrayed as cold, controlling, and ruthless in his pursuit of what he sees as his son, Theo.

In English law, parenthood is not limited to biology. Legal parentage, parental responsibility, and the child’s welfare all play a critical role in determining how such a dispute might unfold in reality.

Would the courts simply “swap” the children back, or would the best interests of the child take precedence over genetics? Could there be grounds for medical negligence claims against the hospital? And what happens when one parent seeks to enforce their biological rights while the other prioritises emotional bonds?

The series presents a compelling, if dramatic, insight into how family law might navigate these nightmare issues, raising the question – What would you do if you were in their shoes?

Would the courts simply swap the children back?

Some may assume that a hospital mix-up is just a case of correction. Each child returns to their biological parents, and life carries on. However, legally, it’s far more complicated.

Under the Children Act 1989, the guiding principle in any child dispute is the welfare of the child.

English courts do not automatically prioritise biological ties over emotional bonds, particularly when a child has already formed strong attachments to their caregivers.

Judges must consider factors such as:

  1. The child’s emotional security and stability
  2. Potential psychological harm from a sudden transition
  3. The ability of each parent to meet the child’s needs
  4. Any safeguarding concerns

If the court were to rule in favour of a biological swap, it’s unlikely it would happen overnight.

Instead, a phased approach with professional supervision would be considered to reduce trauma for the children.

The psychological and emotional complexities of these rare cases cannot be overstated.

It’s one thing to learn your child isn’t biologically yours, it’s another to be told you must now part with them, potentially never to see them again.

The trauma for both parents and children could lead to lengthy litigation, expert psychological assessments, and a battle fought as much in the heart as in the courtroom.

Would Miles have a strong legal case for custody?

In Playing Nice, Miles is portrayed as a powerful and domineering character, who is adamant that he wants his son back. However, his cold and manipulative nature raises serious concerns.

In a real-world legal battle, Pete and Maddie could argue that handing Theo over to Miles is not in the child’s best interests. If there were evidence of coercive behaviour or psychological harm, social services and the court could intervene to protect the child.

In extreme cases, the courts could grant special guardianship orders or even allow adoption by the non-biological parents, particularly if concerns about the child’s safety arise.

Could the families sue the hospital?

Medical negligence is another avenue that would undoubtedly be explored. The hospital’s duty of care extends to ensuring the correct identification of newborns, and such a catastrophic mix-up would be grounds for a medical negligence claim.

Damages could be awarded for emotional distress, financial impact, and potential therapy costs for the children and parents.

No amount of money, however, could undo the emotional trauma or the legal complexities the families now face.

Deliberate vs accidental birth switches – Could this change the outcome?

The TV series revealed a shocking twist to the story. Lucy, the biological mother of Pete and Maddie’s son Theo, secretly swapped the babies in the hospital. A deliberate baby swap is not just a tragic accident, it’s potentially a criminal act.

While English law does not have a specific offence for “baby swapping,” such an act could lead to serious legal consequences, including charges of kidnap, fraud, or even child endangerment, depending on the circumstances.

In a family court, this would drastically weaken any claim made by the party that carried out the swap.

The deception would likely lead the court to question whether they are fit parents. If the other couple could prove that returning the child to its biological parents would harm the child, the courts could consider removing their parental rights altogether.

What would you do if you found out your child was switched at birth?

Playing Nice forces us to confront an impossible dilemma – would you fight for the child you’ve raised, or insist on your biological right?

In law, as in life, playing nice isn’t always an option. Cases like these can lead to emotionally charged and distressing court battles, where there are no easy answers.

Playing Nice reminds us that these cases are never black and white. While biology is significant, the courts will always put the child’s best interests first. In such heartbreaking circumstances, legal principles provide structure, but they can never truly erase the pain of the past.

If you have been affected by issues similar to those in Playing Nice or require advice on related matters, please contact Alison Green, Partner and Head of the Family and Relationship Team, at alison.green@mackrell.com or on 0207 240 0521. 

Share