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.

This doesn't actually have anything to do with the person being transgender. They can't be on the child's birth certificate because

• they are known not to be the child's biological parent

• they weren't married to the mother at the time of the child's birth

• they didn't do the conception through a legally recognised clinic

The same would apply to anyone in that situation.

I think the second child was born after the marriage.

I couldn't work out whether they could be registered as a parent, even if they couldn't be registered as the father.

AFAIK if the couple are MARRIED the husband is automatically listed as the father.

And (at least when I had my kids) the child can only be registered as another surname when the parents are unmarried.

The second child was born after marriage.

The judgment goes through the law in detail. The GRA contains a carve out which means that it does not apply to change someone's sex for this purpose and therefore the woman with a GRC could not be registered as the child's father irrespective of any other factor.

It was suggested that she apply for step parent adoption as for the first child.

I don't know why you made this factually incorrect assertion about what the judgment states without even reading the judgment. Your error has now been repeated by other people as if it were fact, which is very unhelpful. This is how misinformation gets spread.

The judgment very clearly states that the woman with a GRC cannot be registered as the father for the second child either, because of a provision within the GRA itself which states that a GRC has no effect for this purpose.

The judgment is well reasoned and detailed if people want to understand the law in this area better before commenting.

Is this about a person born female now a trans man wanting to be named as a father? Did " he" provide the sperm? No? Then surely that is the answer. Why get tied in knots ?

Dear @plantcomplex

Your post begins:
”don't know why you made this factually incorrect assertion about what the judgment states without even reading the judgment”

My post starts:
If I understand the article correctly, there seemed to be two central considerations.

My comment is only based on my understanding of the article, which I intended to be clear.

If it doesn’t reflect the judgement or the situation in law, it’s helpful for you to have pointed that out and explained the true situation.

if you’re married or civil partners you do both have to agree on what name you choose but you can give the baby any name and surname you like, doesn’t have to relate to either of your own names (in the UK).