This book has explored how the ECtHR has reacted to evolving family and fatherhood realities and, more particularly, to what extent it has contributed to challenge and/or to reproduce ‘conventional fatherhood’ by relying in particular on Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. The preceding chapters have explored how fatherhood has been understood and regulated in different areas of case-law, accurately chosen as particularly emblematic of the fragmentary impact of social change on notions and practices of fatherhood. The following sections now aim to bring the various lines of thought together to provide a more comprehensive picture of the emerging understanding of fatherhood as well as of the roles played by doctrines in this process of (re-)construction. As it will be shown, the definition of fatherhood endorsed by the Court is far from clear cut in two respects. First, although increasingly valuing a father’s interest and commitment to his child, the Court does not abandon ‘conventional fatherhood’. The rights of fathers continue therefore to be adjudicated on the ground of their adherence to the model of ‘conventional fatherhood’, to which – however – the ‘new’ requirement of care is added.