Photo/Illutration The Supreme Court in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward made a historic ruling recognizing a legal parent-child relationship between a transgender woman and her second daughter. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

The Supreme Court's Second Petty Bench ruled that a transgender woman and her second daughter have a legal parent-child relationship.

The woman, who is in her 40s, transitioned before the child's birth. She and her partner conceived the child using her frozen sperm.

The June 21 ruling is the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled on the legal parent-child relationship between a transgender individual who was assigned a male at birth and a child born after their transition.

In lower court decisions, all judges unanimously voted against recognizing the legality of the parent-child relationship. 

The top court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and found that the woman is the "father" of her second daughter.

According to the ruling, “the presence or absence of the parent-child relationship is deeply related to the welfare of the child.”

It also stated that even though they are related by blood, if paternity is not recognized on the basis of the "father's" legal sex, the child will not be able to receive custody, care and support, or become an heir.

The court said, “It is obvious that such a situation would be against the welfare and the best interests of the child.”

The 40-something-year-old was born male but has been living as a woman.

Using her own frozen sperm, her partner, who is a woman, gave birth to their first daughter in 2018.

After that, she changed her gender on the family register to female under the special law on gender identity disorder.

The couple's second daughter was born in 2020, again using her frozen sperm.

Under the current family law system, a legal parent-child relationship does not exist between the transgender woman and her two daughters.

First, the Tokyo Family Court did not recognize the relationship.

The court of second instance made different decisions depending on whether the birth of the child occurred before or after the change of the woman’s gender.

The first daughter was born before the woman’s registered gender change, and the court recognized the legal parent-child relationship on the grounds that the first daughter had “the right to seek recognition as the father” from the transgender woman.

But the court did not recognize a parent-child relationship with the second daughter, who was born after the gender change.

The high court ruling that recognized the father-child relationship between the transgender woman and the first daughter was finalized.

Therefore, a main issue at the appeal court was whether or not to recognize the parent-child relationship between the transgender woman and her second daughter.

In May, the Supreme Court heard arguments from the parties, and the lawyer representing the second daughter pointed out that the recognition of a legal parent-child relationship “gives the (child) the right to seek support from the father and inherit property.”

The lawyer argued that the child should not be deprived of her rights based on circumstances unrelated to the child.

For example, “the time when the parent changed their gender” was beyond the daughter's control, this would result in a serious inequality between the siblings.

The transgender woman herself appeared as the defendant in court and stated that she “seeks a judgment acknowledging that the second daughter is her child.”

The second daughter was the plaintiff in the case and she sought the same legal recognition.

Related News