FZ v MZ

A declaration of parentage determines existing legal status and cannot be granted by consent or default. Where assisted conception occurred outside a licensed clinic, the statutory parenthood provisions must be applied according to their conditions. A transgender man with a gender recognition certificate cannot rely on his acquired gender to obtain the status of father under section 35 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, because section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 preserves the person’s status as father or mother independently of acquired gender. That outcome interferes with Article 8 rights but is lawful, pursues legitimate statutory aims and is proportionate. The court declined to use section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to adopt a different construction.

The proceedings concerned two children of the Applicant and Respondent. The Applicant was a transgender man holding a gender recognition certificate. Both children were conceived using donor sperm through artificial insemination outside a licensed clinic.

For DZ, the parties sought declarations concerning parentage, adoption orders and judicial review of an erroneous birth registration. For AZ, the central issue was whether the Applicant, who was married to the birth mother when AZ was conceived, could be declared and registered as AZ’s father under section 35 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The court also considered Article 8 of the ECHR and section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

1. DZ: parentage. A declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 confirms existing legal status and requires the court to examine the evidence and applicable law. DZ was conceived before the parents married and outside a licensed clinic, so the Applicant did not satisfy sections 35–37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The Applicant was therefore not DZ’s legal father; the biological donor was the legal father, although he lacked parental responsibility.
2. DZ: adoption. The Applicant satisfied the relevant adoption preliminaries, including the home-with requirement, habitual residence, age and consent requirements. A step-parent adoption order under section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was made, extinguishing the donor’s legal parenthood and conferring that status on the Applicant. The Respondent’s legal parenthood was unaffected.
3. DZ: judicial review. The original birth registration was legally erroneous. Following Re K and Osborne v Arnold, judicial review was the appropriate route to quash the registration where a fresh registration was sought and the Registrar General lacked statutory power to register afresh. The claim was allowed and the original registration quashed.
4. AZ: domestic construction. Section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 excludes the status of parenthood from the general effect of section 9. Section 35 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 concerns acquisition of the status of father. The Applicant could not rely on his gender recognition certificate to satisfy the requirement that he be a man for that purpose. He could not therefore be registered as AZ’s father.
5. Human rights. The refusal to register the Applicant as father interfered with the private and family life of the Applicant and AZ. The interference was in accordance with law and pursued legitimate aims, including preserving the statutory scheme concerning parenthood and birth registration. Applying the four-stage Bank Mellat proportionality analysis, the statutory approach was rationally connected to those aims, no less intrusive effective measure was available, and a fair balance was struck.
6. Section 3 and institutional competence. The court declined to adopt an alternative interpretation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In this sensitive area of social, ethical and political policy, Parliament was institutionally better placed to determine the balance. No breach of Article 8 or separate Article 14 issue was established.

The judgment was at first instance. In DZ’s proceedings, Harris J had previously made child arrangements and parental responsibility orders on 7 November 2024, and permission to bring the judicial review claim out of time was granted on 17 December 2024. The present court allowed the judicial review and made the adoption order.