A High Court judgment confirming that a transgender man cannot be registered as the father on the birth certificate of his children highlights the difficulties faced by transgender parents, and the implications of marriage within the statutory framework governing legal parenthood.
In the judgment handed down last week following a hearing in July, Mrs Justice Lieven set out the facts relating to FZ and MZ, the parents of two children, DZ and AZ. FZ is a transgender man with a full Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), and MZ is his wife. The couple married in 2022 and conceived the children using artificial insemination from a known donor, although “outside of a licensed clinic for the purposes of the HFEA 2008”.
The parents sought declarations of parentage for both children, alongside child arrangements and related orders. However, the court heard there was a crucial difference between the circumstances of the two children’s births, with DZ born before the marriage and AZ after.
The central question for the court was whether FZ, under domestic law, could be named as the father of the children.
Mrs Justice Lieven found that while the background issues were more complex in relation to DZ, the outcome was straightforward.
In respect of DZ, there was an application to remedy the birth registration, where FZ had, as it later transpired, erroneously been registered as the father by the registry office. As the conception had occurred prior to marriage and outside of a licensed clinic, HFEA 2008 did not apply. Using common law principles, the donor was the legal father of DZ, although as he is not named on the birth certificate he does not have parental responsibility.
The application before Mrs Justice Lieven was to establish the legal parentage of the applicant via a step-parent adoption order, which was unopposed and granted. By way of judicial review, Mrs Justice Lieven also ordered that the original birth certificate be quashed.
Matters relating to AZ, and in particular whether FZ could be named as the father, were more difficult, due to the interaction between the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) and the GRA. As AZ was conceived after the marriage, Section 35 HFEA 2008 applies.
The question for the court in his aspect was whether FZ, asserting to be neither a biological or gestational parent, could be registered as the father due to marriage with the child’s mother.
The question raised three issues, the court found:
- What is the proper interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions?
- If the interpretation leads to the conclusion that the applicant cannot be registered as the father, does it create a breach of Article 8?
- If there is a breach of the applicant’s Article 8 rights, does the interpretative duty under Section 3 HRA mean that the provisions can be read to allow the applicant to be registered as the father?
Accepting that FZ’s lived role is that of AZ’s parent and father, Mrs Justice Lieven found that the birth registration fails to record that parental relationship. Although Article 8 was engaged and interfered with, she concluded that there was no violation. Under domestic law, FZ could not be registered as AZ’s father.
The court made child arrangements orders confirming that AZ lives with both parties and that FZ has parental responsibility. The decision does not preclude the parents from pursuing a step-parent adoption, as with DZ, which would confer legal parentage on FZ.
FZ v MZ [2025] EWHC 3338 (Fam)
