High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate

[IwantToRetire]

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.

Article continues at https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/high-court-rules-transgender-father-cannot-be-named-on-birth-certificate/

Suspect there was an earlier thread about this, but no time to search.

Rightly so.

The birth certificate is not the place to act out your ego identity. It’s a document belonging to the child who has the right to know their biological identity.

They may have a GRC under the GRA but the same Act is also specific about parentage. At any point the TM could detransition and where would that leave the child.

If I understand the article correctly, there seemed to be two central considerations.

The inseminination did not take place in a ‘licensed clinic’, so the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 does not apply. (The article doesn’t explain what that Act says.)

One pregnancy took place before the mother, who carried the child, was married to the person wishing to be registered as the father, and one afterwards.

The judgement states that her spouse can be registered as the father of the child who was born after the marriage, but not the one born before. A step-parental adoption can be applied for, though, ‘which would convey legal parentage.’

Less difficulty for parents with trans identities than difficulty for the children of those parents. They are entitled to their real history and identity, unentangled by the inner life of their parent.

But I don't think we're listening to the high court at the moment are we? Laws and judgments are just wibbly wobbly opt in kind of things that no one actually bothers to read, understand or follow if you believe our dear Govt.

Taking on the traditional role of a father within a family does not make a person the biological father of a child.

I used to think birth certificates were about your biological parents but they seem to be about the people raising you if in a married couple at time of birth.

This wouldn’t be a story if they were married before the first child was born it seems.

I think the headline is misleading, or limited.

Headline:
High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate

If it said

‘High Court rules transgender father can only be named on birth certificate for the child born after marriage’
or
‘High Court rules transgender father cannot be named on birth certificate of child born before marriage’

it would be clearer.

If you have a child born to a heterosexual couple I think it is assumed that the husband is the father of the child.

Whether the mother can register someone else as the father I don’t know.

From other MN threads I think the husband can register himself as the father if he gets to register office first.

From that article:

Under domestic law, FZ could not be registered as AZ’s father.

Same issue that Freddie McConnell had when trying to change the law to be registered as father of the children that Freddie had conceived and given birth to.

Mother and father have specific meanings under UK domestic law.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-52471697

“It highlights the difficulties for transgender parents”, what about the child?!

A child is not a commodity, birth certs have traditionally tried to reflect the biological reality and there isn’t a need for that to change.

I think people lose sight of the fact that these babies are real people who will one day be adults. And they should be entitled to know who each of their biological parents are.

Agreed.
Questions have to be asked about why so many trans adults interfere with their children's rights and psychological wellbeing by inflicting on them their niche views of reality.

it seems to be a cruel and unusual punishment to inflict on children.

I am always struck by the contrast to the long established approach taken to birth certificates of adopted children.

Adoptees become the legal children of the adopters.

They have an adoption certificate listing the names of adoptive parents.

They have a short birth certificate recording adopted name, date and place of birth.

There is also an original birth certificate to which they have no access before they are adults (and then sometimes on,y after compulsory counselling) which lists the biological parent(s).

Nobody pretends they were actually born to the adoptive parents. That would be a lie.

Why can the same approach not be followed for the children of transgender parents?

Original birth certificates for adoptees were sealed until the 1976 Adoption Act which seems very recent considering the long history of adoptions.

Children born from donated eggs or sperm through a licensed clinic can access their donor information at 18. But the birth certificate has the recipient parents on it. Birth certificate’s have not been updated to factor in what’s now possible through fertility treatment.

Yes that's all correct. I have young children and remember the procedure. If the mother wants to register a man as the father who she isn't married to then he has to come to the appointment to confirm it, otherwise you'd get Brad Pitt etc listed on birth certificates 😂

I was just meaning that if for example you're a married lesbian couple or like in this case one of you is trans you can both be on the birth certificate. Many people think it's a certificate about your biological parents - I used to think the same. I agree with the above post on how adoption is dealt with. I think it's still important that children have a record of their biological parents. It can be useful for a variety of reasons. Maybe birth certificates should have both the legal parents and the biological parents if different.

I may be a bit tired tonight, but I am finding it hard to understand. Is the ‘transgender man’, who wants to be put down as the children’s father, actually a woman who has acquired a GRA certificate?

So that would mean the woman (although identifying as a man, with a certificate and all) is going down on the birth certificate as the father of the child born during the marriage?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I don't think the Judge has said that, I read it that in both cases, they'll have to apply for step-parent adoption.
It says that the BC of the child born before marriage does erroneously have the TiF listed as father but has ordered it to be quashed.

For the child born after the marriage it says:

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.

I always struggle with this. So these are two biological females, one had 2 kids, neither of them are biological children of the partner who is the "father"? But he can be put on the birth certificate of the child he had after marriage? Interesting. Can he adopt the other child, if biological relation seem to be not an issue?

God this is all such utter navel-gazing stupidity. All these narcissists should maybe have a think about all the millions in the world who live in abject poverty, and dictatorships and warzones, get their heads out of their backsides and start doing something useful with their lives.

Thank you for your post @EyesOpening .

I agreed with you, so I’ve followed the link given in the article to the judgement, but I’m having trouble following it at the moment. I’ll try again tomorrow when my concentration ought to be better.

Oh the fact that identity is not individual but also relational is recognised in law.

How INTERESTING...

I think this is more to do with the HFEA act. If a lesbian couple have licensed treatment with donor sperm and they are married, then they will both be legal parents. The term ‘mother’ is only used for the woman giving birth even if the other parent’s eggs were used (shared motherhood).

However if the couple aren’t married, then they have to sign legal parenting forms before treatment for the partner to be registered as the second parent. This is the case with a heterosexual couple using donor sperm too.

As the couple used an unlicensed donor, the sperm donor is legally the parent - technically they could claim child support or he could claim custody.

Nothing really to do with being transgender as the law is the same for any unmarried couple.

Ok. I see that the ‘transgender man’ (woman with a GRA certificate), could not be put down as the father on the birth certificate of either child. The erroneous birth certificate was quashed, and a step-parent adoption order was granted (unopposed) for the first child. The ‘transgender man’ could also apply for step-parent adoption for the child born after the marriage. To confer legal parentage.

That makes sense. Usually, a non-paternity event will be because of the presumption of fatherhood in official documents. Say if the husband of the woman who has the baby is not the biological father. However, in this case there could be no presumption of fatherhood, so it would have been the state having full knowledge of it being false at the outset.

I think that’s it, anyway. A lesbian couple then, using donor sperm. The partner (of the mother of both the children) wishing to be recognised as the father on their birth certs, but having to apply for step-parent adoption instead.

This has started me wondering about birth certificates for children born to married gay or lesbian couples. I’ve been reading some articles an internet search produced, in hopes that they might be easier to understand - whilst appreciating that they might be less accurate.

@Shelby2010 wrote: If a lesbian couple have licensed treatment with donor sperm and they are married, then they will both be legal parents. The term ‘mother’ is only used for the woman giving birth even if the other parent’s eggs were used (shared motherhood).

So, the person giving birth, who carried the baby, is the ‘mother.’ I assume that’s what appears in the birth certificate. How is the other woman described - ‘parent’?

It's not easy to follow is it, I had to re-read it a few times!

@Cailleach1 has written in more easy to read terms, which is exactly how I interpreted it.

Thank you for this. So what do their birth certificates look like now and what will they look like once parental responsibility is conferred? Do they and will they only include their biological mother's name and no father?