The European Court of Human Rights has rejected an application brought by a trans man who wanted to be recorded as his child’s legal father in the UK.
The case challenged a legal framework that requires a birthing person to be recorded as the child’s mother on a British birth certificate even if they are legally recognised as male.
The four-strong committee sitting at the ECHR unanimously rejected the appeal as inadmissible having found that the appellant’s alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention of Human Rights, read with Article 8, was “manifestly ill-founded”.
The applicants, named as parent Y and child X, complained of discrimination on the basis of Y’s status as a transgender man, arguing that having a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) provided legal grounds for a birth certificate to name them as their child’s father.
Natalie Sutherland is a partner at International Family Law Group (IFLG) and is now advising the applicant in relation to the decision and the possible next steps.
Speaking on behalf of her client, she said: “This is a disappointing outcome for [Y] and his family, following many years of legal proceedings.
“The case raises important questions about the recognition of trans parents and the way in which the law records and understands modern families.
“[Y]’s case was the first of its kind, where the law had to consider whether a birthing trans man with a GRC could be registered as his child’s father or parent rather than mother. More recently the law has said that a non-birthing married trans man with a GRC cannot be a legal parent.
“Our law simply does not serve the trans community in respect of parenthood, which has significant implications for children.
She added: “We will now take time to consider the Court’s decision and its wider implications. This decision is not the end of the matter. [Y] remains determined to challenge the current legal position and other avenues are now being explored with a new legal team.”
In its decision, published on the 25th June, the ECHR committee said the applications did not invoke Article 14 of the Convention read with Article 8 in their grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal and “the court is doubtful as to whether the registration requirement [GRC] gives rise to a difference in treatment persons in comparable situations on the grounds of transgender status.”
It continued: “The applicants’ complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, read with Article 8, are therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible.”
The applicant was represented in the European Court of Human Rights by Laytons LLP, with Child X represented by Cambridge Family Law Practice.
