Azan Marwah recently acted (led by Nigel Kat SC, and with Jason Ko) in the case K (an Infant) v Secretary for Justice & Ors [2025] HKCFI 1974, in which The Court of First Instance handed down a judgment addressing important questions about recognition of parental rights in same-sex families in Hong Kong.

This judicial review case concerned a child, “K”, born through reciprocal IVF to a married female same-sex couple, “R” and “B”. While both women meticulously planned K’s conception and upbringing, only B — the gestational mother — was recorded as K’s parent on the birth certificate. R, although the biological mother confirmed by DNA testing, was neither registered nor recognised as a parent under Hong Kong law.

This gap in the legal framework left K with only one legally recognised parent, despite having two parents in reality. The applicant, K (acting through his next friend), challenged the constitutionality of the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap. 429) and the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance (Cap. 174), which only recognise one “mother” and one “father,” and provide no mechanism for recognising a second female parent.

The challenge sought declarations that these provisions were unconstitutional insofar as they excluded recognition of a “parent at common law” in cases of reciprocal IVF within a committed same-sex relationship. The Court noted the profound importance of the question — “Who is my parent? Is this my child?” — not just for K, but for society as a whole.

In his judgment, Coleman J acknowledged that the statutory scheme created a disparity: while heterosexual couples using assisted reproductive technology could both be registered as parents, same-sex couples could not. He held that the Court had “found a proper basis for the grant of relief.”

This decision represents a significant development in Hong Kong’s constitutional and family law, particularly for children of same-sex couples. It underscores the tension between existing statutory definitions of parenthood and evolving understandings of family, equality, and the best interests of the child.

Full judgment is available here.

Read the relevant news report here.

This case once again reflects Azan’s steadfast dedication to advancing equality and protecting the rights of children and families in Hong Kong. Click here to learn more about Azan.

---

馬亞山大律師近期在案件 K（未成年）訴 律政司司長及其他 [2025] HKCFI 1974 中代表申請人（由 Nigel Kat資深大律師主理，及高麟大律師協助），該案由高等法院原訟法庭作出判決，涉及香港同性家庭父母權利認可的重要問題。

此司法覆核案件涉及一名兒童「K」，其透過互惠體外受精（reciprocal IVF）由一對已婚女同性伴侶「R」及「B」所生。雖然兩名女性共同精心計劃 K 的受孕及成長，惟在出生證明上，僅有 B — 即孕母 — 被列為 K 的父母。R 雖為生物學母親（經 DNA 測試證實），但在香港法律下既未登記亦未獲承認為父母。

這法律框架的缺口導致 K 在法律上只有一名被承認的父母，即便現實中有兩位父母。K（透過其法定代表人）質疑《父母與子女條例》（第 429 章）及《生死登記條例》（第 174 章）的憲法性，因這些條例只承認一名「母親」及一名「父親」，而沒有機制承認第二名女性父母。

申請人尋求法院作出裁定，指該等條文在排除承認「普通法下父母」的情況下，於互惠體外受精且穩定的同性伴侶關係中屬違憲。法庭指出此問題的重要性——「誰是我的父母？這是我的孩子嗎？」——不僅對 K 個人，亦對整個社會具有深遠意義。

Coleman 法官在判詞中承認，現行法例造成不平等：異性夫婦使用輔助生殖技術時可雙方登記為父母，但同性伴侶則無此可能。他認為，法庭「已找到授予救濟的適當法律依據」。

此判決標誌香港憲法及家庭法領域的重要進展，尤其對同性伴侶的子女而言。它凸顯了現行法例對父母身份的定義與家庭觀念、平等原則及兒童最佳利益的演變之間的張力。

按此瀏覽完整判詞。

點擊這裡閱讀相關新聞報導。

此案再次反映馬亞山大律師對推動平等、以及保障香港兒童和家庭權益的堅定承擔。按此了解更多關於馬亞山大律師。