Reported Case: Deirdre Fottrell KC and Andrew Powell Represented the Applicant / Claimant in FZ v MZ [2025] EWHC 3338 (Fam)

Deirdre Fottrell KC and Andrew Powell represented the applicant/claimant, FZ, in FZ v MZ [2025] EWHC 3338 (Fam) before Lieven J sitting in the Family Division and the Administrative Court. Deirdre and Andrew were instructed by Louisa Ghevaert of Louisa Ghevaert Associates.

There were a number of applications before the court concerning the two children, DZ and AZ. Each child was conceived using a known sperm donor.

Key issues before the court:

1. A claim for judicial review to quash DZ’s birth registration where, FZ, a transgender man, had been named as the child’s father on DZ’s birth certificate, in circumstances where he was not married to the mother and conception did not take place in a licensed clinic. If granted, a quashing order would permit a new birth registration, rather than a re-registration.
2. FZ’s application for a step-parent adoption order in respect of DZ.
3. The final issue was a novel point of law that had not previously been considered in this jurisdiction. After DZ’s birth, MZ and FZ married. Post marriage, MZ became pregnant using the same sperm donor and gave birth to AZ. FZ applied for a declaration of parentage to allow FZ to be named on AZ’s birth certificate as his father in circumstances where FZ also held a gender recognition certificate. It was argued on behalf of FZ that he can be registered as the father pursuant to Section 35 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 because he was married to MZ at the time of conception.

Outcome

In respect of DZ, the court determined that the judicial review should be allowed, and the original birth certificate be quashed. A step-parent adoption order was also made in favour of FZ, allowing FZ to acquire legal parenthood for DZ alongside MZ.

With respect to AZ, the court declined to make a declaration of parentage. Whilst it was argued that the facts of the case were distinguishable to R (on the application of McConnell) v The Registrar General for England and Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 559, Lieven J concluded that adopting a pure domestic law interpretation, a transgender man could not be registered as the child’s father and that there was no breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

However, Lieven J concluded [§107]:

“I also accept that if FZ cannot be named as the father, he is put at a disadvantage as a transgender man because he cannot be named as the second parent under Section 42 HFEA 2008, not having been married as a woman. It therefore follows that there is, or may be, a lacuna or inconsistency in the statutory scheme.”

Read the judgment here.