The Family Court held on 10 August 2026 that a woman registered as a child's "parent" did not acquire parental responsibility, because the child was conceived by sexual intercourse, not assisted reproduction.
Key facts
- Who: Unmarried same-sex couples where one woman is the child's genetic and gestational mother and the other woman is registered as a "parent" on the birth certificate.
- From: 10 August 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: X (female partner non-acquisition of parental responsibility), Re [2026] EWFC 252 (B)
In Re X (female partner non-acquisition of parental responsibility) [2026] EWFC 252 (B), Recorder Sirikanda KC decided a preliminary issue in a child arrangements application. The judgment was delivered on 10 August 2026 after a hearing on 7 August 2026. It is anonymised, and the initials below are those used in the judgment.
Background. AR applied for a child arrangements order for X, a child aged 3. BM is X's genetic and gestational mother. The women began a relationship in or around early 2023, when BM was already pregnant. X had been conceived through sexual intercourse with a man, LY, not through assisted reproduction. The women were not married or in a civil partnership.
About six weeks after the birth, both women attended a register office. AR was recorded on the birth certificate as "parent". She said this gave her parental responsibility. X lives with BM and has no contact with AR. BM opposes the application and alleges domestic abuse, which AR does not accept.
The question. Did registration as a parent on the birth certificate give AR parental responsibility?
The decision. No. The court declared that AR does not have parental responsibility for X.
The reasoning. The court said registration does not in itself decide legal parentage. It cited the Court of Appeal in P v Q and F [2024] EWCA Civ 878, which described registration as practical evidence of legal parentage, not the source of the legal status.
The court followed the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Re J (loss of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344. That case concerned men registered as fathers who either were not the genetic father or could not be proved to be. On that reasoning, the court held that a woman can gain parental responsibility through registration under section 4ZA of the Children Act 1989 only if she was already a parent under section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. That section contemplates a child born as a result of assisted reproduction within the scheme of the Act. It was common ground that X was not.
Next steps in the case. The court held that AR is not a "parent" in law, so she has no automatic right to apply for a section 8 order, such as a child arrangements order. She must apply for permission to issue a section 8 application, and directions were given for that.
The court also adjourned the fact-finding on the abuse allegations. No qualified legal representative was present to cross-examine BM for AR, because an earlier order had not been forwarded through oversight. The court said it could not permit AR to cross-examine BM directly.
The court said that, if the parties' accounts of the register office visit are accurate, it was concerned there may be a practice of unmarried same-sex couples registering the non-genetic, non-gestational woman as a "parent" without meeting the section 43 criteria. It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrar General.
What this means for unmarried same-sex couples and parents seeking contact
Being named on a birth certificate does not on its own give parental responsibility. Where a child was conceived without assisted reproduction, this judgment held that a non-genetic partner registered as a parent did not acquire it that way. Anyone unsure of their status, or wanting to apply to see a child, should get legal advice early. Someone without an automatic right to apply may first need the court's permission.
Sources
- X (female partner non-acquisition of parental responsibility), Re [2026] EWFC 252 (B), Family Court, 10 August 2026