Same-sex couples should have ‘right to found family,' lawyer tells Hong Kong court in reciprocal IVF case
Same-sex couples should have 'the right to found a family,' a lawyer has told a Hong Kong court after lesbian parents who had a child via reciprocal in vitro fertilisation (RIVF) were barred from including both their names on their son's birth certificate.
Hong Kong's High Court heard arguments in a judicial review related to the legal parental rights of same-sex couples with children born via RIVF on Wednesday and Thursday.
The case relates to a lesbian couple, R and B, who underwent RIVF – a procedure allowing two women to take part in pregnancy – in South Africa in 2020. The egg was extracted from R, and B carried and gave birth to the baby, K, in Hong Kong in 2021.
Hong Kong, which does not recognise same-sex marriage, views only a child's birth mother and her husband as legal parents. In R and B's case, only the birth mother, B, is the legal parent of their son.
The couple went to court in 2023 to seek a declaration under the Parent and Child Ordinance that R is also a legal parent. The judge declined but, in her ruling, stated that R was a 'parent at common law' – a first in the common law world.
Representing K, barrister Nigel Kat said on Wednesday that the 'parent at common law' status is not recognised in the Parent and Child Ordinance, and the child does not have a birth certificate showing that R is a legal parent.
'Therefore, R can walk around and tell everybody, 'I'm a parent,' [but] she can't prove it,' he said, adding that gay people 'are not excluded from the right to found a family.'
Kat argued that the birth certificates of children born via RIVF should reflect both parents' names, and that references to parents in the Parent and Child Ordinance should be amended to include 'parents at common law' where their children were born via RIVF.
'Demeaning' discrimination
During the hearing on Wednesday, barrister Isabel Tam – who is representing the birth mother, B, as an interested party in the case – said her client faced discrimination because of her sexual orientation.
If B and R were a heterosexual couple who had undergone IVF, they would 'not be in this position,' Tam said. 'This has quite a disproportionate impact on the development of her family life as well as how she presents herself to the outside world.'
The discrimination was 'particularly demeaning' because it was based on personal characteristics that could not be changed, the barrister said.
'B and R cannot change their… sexual orientation,' Tam said. 'K cannot change the manner of his birth.'
Stewart Wong, representing the Department of Justice, said on Thursday that while he accepted that the easiest way to prove parental status was a birth certificate, the suggestion that K's family would encounter embarrassing situations was 'exaggerated.'
One would not have to prove to the school that you are the parent every day, Wong said, adding that it would only need to be done when applying. For 'regular check-ups' at the hospital, the nurse would just require proof at registration, he said.
It is 'not as if you need to prove or bring… [the child's] birth certificate every day of your life when the child is a minor,' Wong said.
Guardianship order
There is already an existing framework – a guardianship order from the court – if one is seeking parental rights and status, he said.
'The guardianship order offers clear and absolute proof on occasions that legal rights and obligations… [are] necessary,' Wong said.
In response, Judge Russell Coleman said having to apply for a guardianship order may make the parents feel 'like less of a parent or a second-class parent.'
Barrister Azan Marwah, representing K, raised other issues that may not be addressed by guardianship orders. In the event of a separation, B would not be able to demand maintenance payments from R, who can 'simply get away,' he said on Thursday.
K would also have the 'lifelong disability' of not being able to inherit from R under the city's intestate ordinance, Marwah said, referring to the set of laws that regulate inheritance arrangements when one dies without a will.
On Thursday, Coleman challenged Wong's view that those seeking parental rights could simply apply for a court guardianship order.
The judge said 'what bristles with people' was the assumption that 'people like R and B… can't be perfectly good parents,' and questioned why a 'licence' was required.
Wong said such same-sex relationships could be 'too variable' as the parties may not be stable.
Coleman replied that the same could be said for heterosexual relationships.
The judge said he would hand down a decision by August 22.
The hearing comes ahead of the government's October deadline to provide a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, per a top court ruling in 2023. No public consultations, however, are known to have taken place yet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
19 hours ago
- HKFP
Same-sex couples should have ‘right to found family,' lawyer tells Hong Kong court in reciprocal IVF case
Same-sex couples should have 'the right to found a family,' a lawyer has told a Hong Kong court after lesbian parents who had a child via reciprocal in vitro fertilisation (RIVF) were barred from including both their names on their son's birth certificate. Hong Kong's High Court heard arguments in a judicial review related to the legal parental rights of same-sex couples with children born via RIVF on Wednesday and Thursday. The case relates to a lesbian couple, R and B, who underwent RIVF – a procedure allowing two women to take part in pregnancy – in South Africa in 2020. The egg was extracted from R, and B carried and gave birth to the baby, K, in Hong Kong in 2021. Hong Kong, which does not recognise same-sex marriage, views only a child's birth mother and her husband as legal parents. In R and B's case, only the birth mother, B, is the legal parent of their son. The couple went to court in 2023 to seek a declaration under the Parent and Child Ordinance that R is also a legal parent. The judge declined but, in her ruling, stated that R was a 'parent at common law' – a first in the common law world. Representing K, barrister Nigel Kat said on Wednesday that the 'parent at common law' status is not recognised in the Parent and Child Ordinance, and the child does not have a birth certificate showing that R is a legal parent. 'Therefore, R can walk around and tell everybody, 'I'm a parent,' [but] she can't prove it,' he said, adding that gay people 'are not excluded from the right to found a family.' Kat argued that the birth certificates of children born via RIVF should reflect both parents' names, and that references to parents in the Parent and Child Ordinance should be amended to include 'parents at common law' where their children were born via RIVF. 'Demeaning' discrimination During the hearing on Wednesday, barrister Isabel Tam – who is representing the birth mother, B, as an interested party in the case – said her client faced discrimination because of her sexual orientation. If B and R were a heterosexual couple who had undergone IVF, they would 'not be in this position,' Tam said. 'This has quite a disproportionate impact on the development of her family life as well as how she presents herself to the outside world.' The discrimination was 'particularly demeaning' because it was based on personal characteristics that could not be changed, the barrister said. 'B and R cannot change their… sexual orientation,' Tam said. 'K cannot change the manner of his birth.' Stewart Wong, representing the Department of Justice, said on Thursday that while he accepted that the easiest way to prove parental status was a birth certificate, the suggestion that K's family would encounter embarrassing situations was 'exaggerated.' One would not have to prove to the school that you are the parent every day, Wong said, adding that it would only need to be done when applying. For 'regular check-ups' at the hospital, the nurse would just require proof at registration, he said. It is 'not as if you need to prove or bring… [the child's] birth certificate every day of your life when the child is a minor,' Wong said. Guardianship order There is already an existing framework – a guardianship order from the court – if one is seeking parental rights and status, he said. 'The guardianship order offers clear and absolute proof on occasions that legal rights and obligations… [are] necessary,' Wong said. In response, Judge Russell Coleman said having to apply for a guardianship order may make the parents feel 'like less of a parent or a second-class parent.' Barrister Azan Marwah, representing K, raised other issues that may not be addressed by guardianship orders. In the event of a separation, B would not be able to demand maintenance payments from R, who can 'simply get away,' he said on Thursday. K would also have the 'lifelong disability' of not being able to inherit from R under the city's intestate ordinance, Marwah said, referring to the set of laws that regulate inheritance arrangements when one dies without a will. On Thursday, Coleman challenged Wong's view that those seeking parental rights could simply apply for a court guardianship order. The judge said 'what bristles with people' was the assumption that 'people like R and B… can't be perfectly good parents,' and questioned why a 'licence' was required. Wong said such same-sex relationships could be 'too variable' as the parties may not be stable. Coleman replied that the same could be said for heterosexual relationships. The judge said he would hand down a decision by August 22. The hearing comes ahead of the government's October deadline to provide a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, per a top court ruling in 2023. No public consultations, however, are known to have taken place yet.
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Asia Times
Anwar's immunity bid fails in rule-of-law test for Malaysia
In a landmark June 4 ruling, Malaysia's High Court denied Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's controversial attempt to shield himself from civil proceedings by invoking a constitutional mechanism — a move critics say was a veiled attempt at political immunity. The court's rejection of Anwar's bid marks the beginning of a legal confrontation unprecedented in Malaysian history: a sitting prime minister now stands to defend himself in court while governing the nation. The decision arrives on the heels of a motion by Anwar's legal team seeking to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court. These questions, according to the defense, pertained to the burdens placed on the Prime Minister's Office by an ongoing civil suit and were framed not as an immunity plea but as a request for a 'constitutional filter.' Yet the distinction was semantic at best. 'We are not claiming immunity,' Anwar's counsel asserted on June 3. 'We are simply seeking clarity to protect the executive's function.' But the subtext was clear: Anwar wanted out of the dock. The case in question — a civil suit filed by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther alleging sexual misconduct by Anwar — predates Anwar's premiership. The incident allegedly occurred in 2018, and Rawther filed the suit in 2020. Notably, Anwar did not attempt to strike out the suit at any point over the past three years. Only on May 23, 2025 — a staggering 912 days after he assumed office — did he pivot to constitutional arguments. Rawther's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, minced no words in court. 'Why did the Prime Minister take 912 days to raise this issue?' he asked. 'If the matter truly affected his ability to discharge executive functions, he should have addressed it long ago.' Rafique also pointed out that Anwar's affidavit failed to provide any reason for the delay — a procedural omission that, in the eyes of many, exposed the real motivation behind the application. More damningly, Rafique invoked Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. 'No man — not even the Prime Minister — can stand above that,' he said. 'Immunity, whether cloaked as a filter or wrapped in legalese, is still immunity.' Presiding Judge Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed all eight questions as 'untenable, abstract and speculative.' She ruled that the Federal Court need not be burdened with academic hypotheticals. The trial, she affirmed, will proceed as scheduled on June 16, and 20,000 ringgit (US$4,700) in legal costs were awarded to Rawther. Anwar's team immediately sought an urgent stay of the ruling, but it also was dismissed. They now have 30 days to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal, though the countdown to the trial has already begun. In her oral judgment, Roz Mawar made it clear: Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Constitution — which Anwar's team cited to support their plea — contain no implicit or explicit provision for immunity. The Constitution, she emphasized, enshrines accountability, not executive insulation. Anwar's maneuver has drawn comparisons to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2020 attempt to sidestep legal scrutiny. Facing multiple indictments, Netanyahu petitioned the Knesset for parliamentary immunity, claiming the charges were politically motivated. While Israel's system at least provides a legal pathway for such immunity via legislative vote, Malaysia's does not. Anwar's attempt to manufacture a similar buffer through the courts was both bold and, ultimately, unsuccessful. In both cases, the public response was the same: dismay at the spectacle of a sitting prime minister attempting to rewrite the rules mid-game. Anwar's critics say his move reeks of the same hubris — a desperate attempt to evade moral reckoning while cloaked in constitutional garb. For a man who once stood as the face of Reformasi, the optics are devastating. Here is Anwar — long celebrated as a martyr of political injustice, imprisoned under Mahathir Mohamad's authoritarian regime — now attempting to insulate himself from due process using the very levers of power he once opposed. This isn't Anwar's first brush with accusations of overreach. His 1999 conviction for abuse of power — widely seen as politically charged — is now being unearthed in conversations across social media and political circles alike. History, as they say, echoes. The parallel doesn't stop there. Like Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra — another leader accused of self-enrichment and later pardoned — Anwar has blurred the lines between public service and political dynasty. His appointment of Thaksin as ASEAN adviser and his own daughter Nurul Izzah as Deputy President of the PKR have raised questions about nepotism and political insulation, further damaging his image as a reformer. Conversely, Rawther's credibility has only been strengthened by this legal victory. He has, for years, insisted that his pursuit of justice is not politically motivated. The June 4 ruling — which affirms the legitimacy of his claim and the court's commitment to due process — lends weight to that assertion. In a political landscape often defined by backroom deals and unaccountable elites, Rawther has emerged as a symbol of perseverance — a private citizen holding the nation's most powerful man to legal scrutiny. This verdict could well reshape how Malaysia is seen on the regional stage. As the country currently chairing ASEAN, the world is watching. The failure of Anwar's immunity gambit is a litmus test of Malaysia's democratic maturity. What signal would it have sent if a sitting Prime Minister could so easily erect a legal wall around himself? The judiciary, by rejecting this narrative, has reaffirmed Malaysia's commitment to constitutional supremacy and rule of law. In Rafique's words outside the court, 'This ruling ensures that in Malaysia, no executive, no prime Minister, no monarch can place himself above the people.' This episode will linger in the nation's political memory — not just for what it reveals about Anwar's instincts, but for what it says about the resilience of Malaysia's institutions. The prime minister now finds himself in uncharted territory: governing while on trial, a dual burden with no modern precedent in Malaysia. Anwar once said, 'Justice is the soul of governance.' It remains to be seen whether he will honor that creed — or be judged by it.
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Beijing's point man overseeing Hong Kong affairs ‘set to visit city in mid-June'
Beijing's point man overseeing Hong Kong affairs is set to visit the city later this month as it marks the fifth anniversary of the imposition of the national security law and he will speak on the occasion, the Post has learned. Advertisement Sources told the Post that Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO), was planning a visit to the city and was likely to attend a national security legal forum organised by the Department of Justice and scheduled for June 21. 'The authorities have been working on Xia's itinerary. An option is to inspect the progress of the Northern Metropolis, ' an insider said on Tuesday, referring to the megadevelopment which involves turning 30,000 hectares of land near the city's border with mainland China into an economic powerhouse and a housing hub. Xia's scheduled visit will come three weeks after Beijing appointed Zhou Ji as the new director of its liaison office in Hong Kong, replacing Zheng Yanxiong who was in the role for 2½ years, with analysts deeming the reshuffle a sign of shifting priorities to focus more on economic development amid a challenging geopolitical environment. John Lee (left) and Xia Baolong visit the West Kowloon Cultural District in February last year. Photo: Elson Li The occasion Xia is expected to speak at is an annual legal forum to mark the anniversary of the Beijing-imposed security law enacted in 2020 after months of anti-government protests , aimed at preventing, stopping and punishing secession, subversion of state power, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.
