An explainer on a Hong Kong decision that matters to families formed through reciprocal IVF, and to the children at the centre of them.
In K v Secretary for Justice [2026] 1 HKLRD 517; [2025] HKCFI 1974, the Court of First Instance considered how Hong Kong law recognises the parents of a child born through reciprocal IVF. We acted as the solicitors for the applicant.
Reciprocal IVF is a way in which two women can each have a physical part in bringing a child into the world. One partner provides the egg, so she is the child's genetic mother; the other partner carries the pregnancy and gives birth, so she is the child's birth, or gestational, mother. Both are, in an ordinary sense, the child's parents.
The difficulty was that Hong Kong's parentage law had not been written with this arrangement in mind. Under the existing rules the woman who gives birth is treated as the legal mother, and there was no clear route for the genetic mother to be recognised as a legal parent as well. That left one of the two mothers, and the child's relationship with her, without proper legal footing.
The court held that the provisions of the Parent and Child Ordinance which excluded the genetic mother in a reciprocal-IVF arrangement from legal parentage were unconstitutional. In plain terms, the law as it stood could not stand in the way of recognising the genetic mother as a parent in this situation.
The significance is not abstract. Legal parentage affects a great deal that families rely on without thinking about it, from decisions about a child's care and upbringing to inheritance and everyday questions of who can act for a child. A decision that a genetic mother can be recognised as a parent goes directly to the security of the child and of the family.
For families formed through reciprocal IVF, the decision points towards recognition of both mothers as parents, rather than only the one who gave birth. In practical terms, parents in this situation may wish to consider:
Every family's position is different, and what is sensible for one may not fit another. The value of advice here is in matching the general position to the particular facts.
A first-instance decision resolves the case in front of the court, but how it is given effect more widely tends to develop over time. Questions such as how parentage is recorded in practice, and how the law is applied to arrangements that differ in their details, may continue to be worked through. Families making decisions now should do so on current advice rather than assumptions, and keep in mind that the practical machinery around a decision like this can take time to settle.
We advise on parentage — including for children born through surrogacy and reciprocal IVF — and the recognition of modern families, and we act in the cases that shape this area of Hong Kong law. If this decision touches your family, we can help you understand where you stand and what, if anything, to do about it. You can read more on our family and modern family page, and about how public decisions are challenged on our judicial review page.
This page is general information, not legal advice on any specific situation. For advice on your circumstances, contact us.
You will hear back from a person within two working days. If it is urgent, call the office on (852) 2114 1616 during office hours, or call or WhatsApp us on (852) 6483 1803.
Contact us