- Backed by ADF International, parents appealed lower court ruling which said they must hand over identity documents of now 17-year-old daughter to enable her legal ‘sex change’
- Parents separated from daughter for over a year and a half by court order because they objected to her ‘transition’. Case has received worldwide attention
- Appeal to European Court of Human Rights being considered
Lausanne (7 December 2024) – Switzerland’s highest court has decided parents separated from their daughter for refusing to endorse her gender “transition” must enable their child’s legal “sex change” or face the possibility of criminal charges.
Backed by ADF International, the parents, who are remaining anonymous, had appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) following two lower courts ruling that they had to hand over their daughter’s identity documents so her legally recorded sex could be changed.
The parents argued that both the Swiss Federal Constitution and international law protected their right to act in their daughter’s best interest by not enabling her legal “sex change”.
But the Supreme Court has now rejected their appeal on the basis that its intervening in the case would violate the principle of the separation of powers.
It issued a decision stating: “The situation complained of cannot therefore be remedied by interpretation. Nor can it be concluded that there is a loophole per se that would have to be filled by the courts.
“It would therefore be up to the federal legislature, if necessary, to amend the system as it currently stands under the Act, from which the Federal Court cannot derogate, since it is not its role to interfere in matters that are the responsibility of the federal legislature. It follows that the complaint must be dismissed.”
A further appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is being considered to protect the parents’ rights to care for their daughter without state interference.
The child’s father reacted to the ruling: “We are heartbroken. We love our daughter and only want what’s best for her. We know this decision is not in her best interest.
“That we could face criminal charges for simply trying to care for our daughter shows how deeply embedded transgender ideology is in Swiss institutions and the real harms it causes.
“We are considering our next steps.”
Dr Felix Böllmann, Director of European Advocacy for ADF International, commented: “At every juncture, these loving parents have sought to act in the best interests of their daughter, as is their right and obligation under international law.
“The court’s decision to dismiss their appeal is an intolerable violation of their rights. It has, in effect, mandated a legal ‘transition’ for the daughter against her parents’ wishes.
“Not only is this an intervention without any evidential basis of psychological benefit, but it also could pave the way for potentially irreversible physical interventions down the line.”
By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
Background
This is the latest juncture in a case that has already received worldwide attention.
A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times and X-owner Elon Musk commented on it saying: “This is insane. This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization.”
The daughter’s parents were separated from their child by court order over a year and a half ago, after they objected to their child’s so-called gender “transition”.
They were concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and irreversible decisions when she first said she identified as the opposite sex following mental health struggles at the age of 13.
The Cass Review, a landmark independent report in the UK which examined the evidence around “gender affirmative care” in minors, confirmed the parents’ concerns about the risks and harms associated with this model. As does the increasing number of countries rejecting this form of so-called “treatment”—such as the UK and, recently, Chile.
The parents refused “puberty blockers” for their child and told her school to not “socially transition” her, and instead arranged private mental health care.
But the school “socially transitioned” the daughter anyway and liaised with the state child welfare agency, Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI) and a transgender-activist organisation.
Eventually, the daughter was separated from her parents and legal authority over her medical care was transferred from the parents to SPMI.
The daughter has lived in a government shelter since April 2023 and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state.
The parents tried and failed to recover legal authority over their daughter’s medical care through an appeal, and a court order was issued for them to hand over her identity documents to enable a legal “sex change”.
Read more details about the case’s background here.
Federal Supreme Court case details
The parents were appealing a ruling from the Court of Justice, the highest court in the canton of Geneva, that said they must hand over their daughter’s identity documents under the threat of criminal charges.
The Federal Supreme Court cannot amend federal law, which allows gender “self-determination”, but has the power to interpret it in accordance with higher law, such as the country’s constitution and supranational or international law.
The parents’ case in the Federal Court appeal was that, on the basis of Article 11 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), they should not be forced to enable their daughter’s legal “sex change”, since it is not in the child’s best interest.
Article 11 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, on the protection of children and young people, says: “Children and young people have the right to the special protection of their integrity and to the encouragement of their development.”
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
Article 8 of the ECHR guarantees the right to a private life, which includes the right of parents to care for their children and their prior right to decide what is in the best interest of their children.
