In a landmark decision on September 9, 2025, Hong Kong’s High Court ruled in favor of a married lesbian couple seeking to have both their names recognized as parents on their son’s birth certificate—a move hailed by advocates as a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights in the city. The ruling, delivered by Judge Russell Coleman, sided with the couple, identified in court documents as R and B, after years of legal wrangling that highlighted the limitations of Hong Kong’s current laws on family and parental recognition.
The couple’s journey began in 2019 when R, a Chinese national, and B, a South African and permanent resident of Hong Kong, married abroad. In 2020, they underwent reciprocal in vitro fertilization (RIVF) in South Africa, a procedure that allowed both women to participate biologically in the conception of their child. R provided the egg, which was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in B, who carried and gave birth to their son, K, in Hong Kong in 2021.
Despite their shared parenthood, Hong Kong’s legal framework only recognized B, the birth mother, as K’s legal parent. The city’s Parent and Child Ordinance, which governs the registration of births, only allows the birth mother and her husband to be listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate. As a result, R’s name was omitted entirely, leaving her without any legal status as K’s parent, even though she is his sole genetic link within the family.
According to Hong Kong Free Press, Judge Coleman’s 81-page judgment was unequivocal in its criticism of the law’s impact on the family. He noted that excluding R from the birth certificate could cause “inconvenience, embarrassment, and potential harm to K’s dignity” as he grows older. Coleman wrote, “Increasingly, as K becomes older, he will likely become cognisant of such a situation. Even if resolved in some way, it can be seen that he will have experienced some inconvenience, embarrassment, and potential harm to his dignity.”
The judge also highlighted the practical consequences of the law, warning that delays in decision-making about parental rights could have “irreversible prejudicial consequences for K,” particularly in urgent situations such as medical emergencies. He observed that the absence of R’s name on the birth certificate could create real doubt about her authority to make decisions regarding K’s welfare, stating, “Some decisions, such as those relating to urgent medical treatment, cannot wait.”
The legal battle began in earnest in 2022 when the couple lodged a formal challenge, seeking a renewed interpretation of the Parent and Child Ordinance to recognize R as K’s parent. Their case was complicated by a 2023 ruling from Judge Queeny Au-Yeung, who declared R a “parent at common law”—a first in the common law world. However, this status was not recognized under the statutory framework, rendering it largely symbolic. As South China Morning Post reported, the Department of Justice refused to re-register K’s birth to include R’s name in October 2023, prompting the couple to pursue judicial review.
During the June 2025 hearing, government lawyers argued that the practical impact of the exclusion was overstated. Department of Justice barrister Stewart Wong contended that the suggestion K’s family would face embarrassing situations was “exaggerated,” adding, “It is not as if a parent would have to bring the child’s birth certificate every day of their life when the child is a minor. At school, the parent would only need to prove when applying that the child is theirs.”
Judge Coleman, however, rejected this line of reasoning, writing in his judgment that “it is not the regularity of interference which matters, but the fact of interference—here likely to be on significant occasions.” He further stated, “That the parent-child relationship is not accurately manifested on K’s birth certificate also infringes on his privacy and family rights.”
According to Associated Press, Coleman found that parts of Hong Kong’s Parent and Child Ordinance “significantly impede” the boy from representing his relationship with R to the outside world. He concluded, “A reasonable balance is not struck between the societal benefits of the measure and the inroads made into the rights of the affected individuals. The constitutional challenge is made good.”
While the ruling represents a breakthrough for the family, it does not yet provide a definitive remedy. Judge Coleman stopped short of issuing an immediate directive, stating he would first hear further arguments on what specific relief should be granted. The couple’s legal team, Patricia Ho & Associates, welcomed the judgment, saying it recognized the rights of family and children as well as the right to equal protection. “It is helpful to the boy that the court accepted that such rights have been infringed, and they look forward to seeing the full picture on this case when the court determines a remedy,” the firm said in a statement on LinkedIn.
The case has drawn attention not only for its impact on the family involved but also for its broader implications amid ongoing debates over same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong. As South China Morning Post noted, the judgment was handed down just a day before the government’s same-sex partnerships bill was set to be debated in the Legislative Council. The bill, which would allow residents who have formed unions overseas to register their partnerships locally, faces significant opposition from lawmakers citing “traditional family values.” Its passage remains uncertain.
Globally, the issue of same-sex parental recognition has seen significant progress in recent years. In Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2021 that a child with two mothers certified in one EU nation must be recognized as such by other member states. Italy’s Constitutional Court made a similar ruling in May 2025, allowing two women to register as parents on a birth certificate despite the country’s restrictive laws on IVF and surrogacy.
In Hong Kong, the path to full equality for same-sex families remains fraught. While Judge Queeny Au-Yeung’s 2023 declaration that R is a “parent at common law” was a symbolic step, Judge Coleman’s ruling goes further by recognizing the constitutional deficiencies in the current system. Yet, as the judgment makes clear, the practical outcome for the family—and potentially others in similar situations—remains to be determined.
For K, now nearly four years old, and his two mothers, the ruling is a validation of their family and a hopeful sign that the law may soon catch up with the realities of modern parenthood. As Hong Kong continues to debate the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, the case of R, B, and K stands as a poignant reminder of the personal stakes behind these legal battles—and the dignity owed to every family, regardless of how it is formed.
