Can a Transgender Man be registered as a 'Father' on a child's birth certificate?
This is the question that arose in the High Court in the case of FZ v MZ-[2025] EWHC 3338 (Fam) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2025/3338.html which is a judgment that was handed down by Mrs Justice Lieven on 18 December 2025. The short answer to the question is 'no' primarily because of the provisions of S12 of the Gender Recognition Act which excludes the status of parenthood from a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Background and Parties
The case involves two children, DZ and AZ, with legal issues concerning their parentage and birth registration. A key difference between the situation in relation to each child is that when DZ was born FZ (a transgender man) and MZ (the birth mother) were not married but by the time that AZ was born, they were married. The case therefore highlights the importance of the marital status of the adults at the time that the children were born.
The Applicant, FZ, is a transgender man with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and is married to MZ, the Respondent, a natal woman. He wanted to be recognised as the father of AZ on that child's birth certificate as the couple were married at the time of AZ's birth, but accepted that he did not qualify to be registered as the father on DZ's birth certificate.
The Applicant and Respondent are referred to as "the parents" and share a caring relationship for both children.
DZ's Case
DZ was conceived while MZ was unmarried via artificial insemination using a known donor, XX, outside of a licensed clinic, which means that the legal parentage under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) relating to married couples does not apply. The legal parents are therefore MZ and and the donor XX. However, due to an error by the Registrar when DZ's birth was registered, FZ was wrongly named as the child's father on the birth certificate. When the error was noticed, it became necessary to correct the register but in so doing could leave a mark on the register that would indicate FZ's status as a transgender man.
In order to correct the register, FZ sought a declaration of non-parentage, as he accepted that he does not meet the conditions under Sections 35 and 36 of the HFEA 2008 to be able to be registered as DZ's father, but at the same time, sought a declaration from the High Court in judicial review proceedings to quash the original registration of DZ's birth to avoid leaving a mark in the register. The Court granted both applications.
A further application to confer legal parenthood upon FZ was made by way of an application for a step-parent adoption order. The effect of that order is to secure FZ's legal status as DZ's parent, and at the same time extinguishing XX's legal parenthood as a child cannot have more than two legal parents. The court approved the step-parent adoption, as it provides legal and emotional permanence for DZ.
AZ's Case
AZ was conceived under similar circumstances to DZ, but the parents were married at the time, invoking Section 35 HFEA 2008.
FZ sought a declaration of parentage under Section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986) to be recognised as AZ's father. As such, the case raised complex issues regarding the interplay between the HFEA 2008 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), particularly whether the Applicant can be registered as AZ's father.
Legal Analysis and Judgments
The court examined the statutory provisions and caselaw, including R (on the application of McConnell) v the Registrar General of England and Wales [2020] EWCA 559 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/559.html which addresses similar issues of gender recognition and parentage.
The court concluded that under domestic law, FZ cannot be registered as AZ's father due to the provisions of Section 12 GRA, which excludes the status of parenthood from the effects of a GRC. The court considered the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, assessing whether the Applicant's rights are breached by not being registered as AZ's father. The court found no breach of Article 8, as the statutory scheme provides alternative means, such as a step-parent adoption, to secure the Applicant's parental status.
Conclusion
The court allowed the judicial review to quash DZ's original birth registration, enabling a new registration without errors.
FZ's inability to be registered as AZ's father is not deemed a breach of human rights, given the legislative framework and available legal remedies.