Cambridge Family Law Practice

The Family Court’s decision in Re X (Female Partner: Non-Acquisition of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWFC 252 (B) provides an important reminder that appearing on a child’s birth certificate does not necessarily make someone a legal parent or confer parental responsibility.

AR and BM were in a same-sex relationship, but BM was already pregnant when their relationship began. The child, X, had been conceived naturally, and AR was subsequently registered as a “parent” on X’s birth certificate.

When AR later applied for a child arrangements order, she argued that registration gave her parental responsibility. Recorder Sirikanda KC rejected that argument.
Because X was not conceived through assisted reproduction, section 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 did not make AR a legal parent. Without that underlying legal status, registration on the birth certificate could not confer parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989.

The Court also held that AR was not automatically entitled to apply for a child arrangements order; as she was not a legal parent and did not fall within another prescribed category, she first required the Court’s permission.

The judgment confirms that a birth certificate records parentage, but does not conclusively create it. The same underlying principle applies irrespective of the sex of the person registered.

Jeremy Ford – one of the partners at Cambridge Family Law Practice – comments: “This decision exposes the potentially profound gap between family life as it is lived and parenthood as it is recognised by law. A name on a birth certificate may carry immense emotional significance, but legal status ultimately depends on the statutory route by which parenthood is acquired.”