Swiss Supreme Court rules parents must facilitate daughter’s gender ‘transition’ under threat of criminal charges in ‘heartbreaking’ decision

  • 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.”

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

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.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Swiss Supreme Court suspends threat of criminal charges for parents who refuse to enable daughter’s “transition”, following appeal filing 

  • In July, Geneva’s highest court demanded parents, under threat of criminal charges, enable child’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents 
  • Swiss Supreme Court has “frozen” threat of criminal charges following parents filing appeal in court last week, pending outcome of case 
  • ADF International backs parents’ legal challenge, which can be supported HERE

Basel (25 September 2024) – The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has suspended the threat of criminal charges against parents separated from their daughter for refusing to enable her gender “transition”.  

The decision was made following the parents filing an appeal at the court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) last week. The parents, with the legal support of ADF International, are appealing a ruling ordering them to facilitate their 16-year-old teenager’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents.  

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child."

- Father

The parents, whose identity is being kept anonymous, were separated from their daughter over a year ago by court order after they objected to their child’s “transition”, in a case that has garnered  worldwide attention. A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times.  

Speaking about the appeal, the father said: “Our hope lies now with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child.” 

The parents are appealing a July ruling from the highest court in the canton of Geneva, the Court of Justice.  

Before the intervention of the Supreme Court, the ruling meant the parents could have been criminally charged if they did not hand over their daughter’s identity documents for her recorded sex to be changed from female to male in the civil registry records, in a legal “sex change”. 

A legal “sex change” could lead the daughter down the path of harmful physical interventions of puberty blockers, “cross-sex” hormone drugs, and, ultimately, body-altering surgeries. 

Case background 

The case centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion”, with care and support, including obtaining mental health care for her.   

Concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, the parents declined puberty blockers and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her.  

The school disregarded the parents’ wishes, “socially transitioned” the daughter and liaised with the state child welfare agency Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), in a situation which led to a court ordering that the daughter be separated from her parents. 

The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state. 

Billboard Chris, a father of two who campaigns to defend children from gender ideology, today mentioned this case in a speech he gave at the UN, where he was hosted by ADF International, about the harms of gender ideology on children. 

Further case details can be found here. 

Appeal filed at Supreme Court 

In the appeal filed with the support of ADF International, the parents argue their daughter is not able to discern the implications of a so-called “sex change” under the law, which would make her vulnerable to an array of dangerous physical interventions, including puberty blockers and surgeries.  

Furthermore, they argue the long-term health consequences of “transitioning” cannot be fully assessed by a teenager, especially considering the outside influences, including from her school, to which she continues to be subjected. 

According to the parents, no psychiatrist or other medical professional has provided a conclusive assessment of their daughter’s ability to understand the consequences of her decisions, which is a fundamental requirement under the law.  

Additionally, they highlight that the daughter’s state-appointed lawyer failed to submit any medical certification regarding her capacity to discern the implications of her decision.  

The parents believe their daughter’s well-being, both mentally and physically, is in danger as she continues to reside in the government youth shelter. 

“Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide. 

“Not only have these parents not had their concerns addressed by the court, but they have also endured a severe violation of their rights as loving parents, with the court transferring authority over their daughter’s medical care from them to the state, in addition to ordering that she reside in a government shelter. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct this grave injustice,” commented Dr Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International. 

The court is expected to take up to six months to reach a decision.  

Lower court judgment 

The decision in July by the Court of Justice confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the parents must hand over documents to enable their daughter’s “sex change” under the law.  

The Court of Justice based its ruling on Article 30b of the Swiss Code Civil, which does not require parental consent when a child capable of discernment is over 16 years of age.  

During the trial, the state child welfare agency failed in its duty to raise concerns about the child’s decision-making capacity.   

The court held a legal “sex change” could be considered in isolation from other steps to physically “transition”. However, the recent Cass Review in the UK demonstrated there is a clear path from “social transition” to irreversible medical interventions.  

Protecting children requires respecting families  

The parents’ legal team asserts that the ability to withhold the personal documents required for the daughter’s legal “sex change” is crucial to protect her from further harm posed by so-called “gender affirmative treatment”.  

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the last domestic recourse for the parents.  

Dr. Boellmann stated: “Safeguarding children from harmful agendas requires respect for the rights of parents. No child should be separated from their loving parents by the state. It is imperative that the Court recognizes, clearly and decisively, that the parents are the primary decisionmakers when it comes to the best interest of the child.  

“Now the court needs to step in to defend the wellbeing of this child, and in so doing, all other children in Switzerland. The Court must abide by Switzerland’s international human rights obligations to protect both the child and parental rights.” 

Read more about the background of the case here.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

“This is insane” – Elon Musk and others react to Swiss authorities separating child from parents who refuse to give her puberty blockers

  • Public figures worldwide comment on the “terrifying” case of the teenage girl in Geneva separated from parents simply for seeking to protect her from gender ideology
  • Father: “The story is truly a nightmare. Swiss authorities have taken our child, our daughter, who’s 16 years old.”
  • ADF International is supporting the parents in seeking justice in court – support the parents here

GENEVA (12 July 2024) – Elon Musk has weighed in after a teenage girl was separated from her parents by Swiss authorities, because her parents refused her puberty blockers. The girl has been housed in a government shelter for over a year.

“This is insane,” commented the owner of “X” and Tesla CEO, adding, “This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization”.

The case, currently unfolding in Swiss courts, centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion,” with care and support, including obtaining mental health care. 

Concerned that their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, they declined “puberty blockers” and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her. The school disregarded the parents’ explicit instruction. 

The school and the state child welfare agency, Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), then brought a case against them in court.

“And that has meant for us many sleepless nights, a lot of deep pain, and a sense of hopelessness,” the father said.

“This is insane - This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization"

- Elon Musk

For seeking to protect the health and wellbeing of their daughter, they now face a legal stand-off over their fundamental rights as parents to care for their child who, residing in a government shelter, is being encouraged to pursue dangerous medical interventions to “transition.”

Also commenting on the case, parental rights campaigner Billboard Chris said: “No child has ever been born in the “wrong body”. As parents, we have the duty to guide and protect our children as they navigate puberty – steering them away from harmful ideologies, and empowering them to feel confident in their own skin.”

Billboard Chris also asked: “Where are the Swiss politicians condemning this child abuse and violation of parents’ rights?”

“Their child has been taken away simply for trying to protect her from harm.”

Dr. Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International, said: “Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide.

“As a result, they are now living every parent’s worst nightmare. Their child has been taken away from them simply for trying to protect her from harm.

Amy Gallagher, the mental health nurse who is suing the UK Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, said: “This case is terrifying. These parents have had their child taken from them by a State that is captured by gender ideology. I trust in faith and hope that the parents, with support from ADF International, will convince the legal authorities in Switzerland that this is not the path to take and the child is united with her parents swiftly. The Swiss authorities should take in to account the outcomes of the Cass Report and the increasing view that affirmation of transgenderism is dangerous.”

Kellie-Jay Keen: “global push to destroy families and access our children.”

Women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen sees “a global push to destroy families and access our children.  The erasure of female language, particularly around motherhood is part of this.  Mothers are the protectors of children, fathers are the protectors of families.  The state does not know or love our children better than parents. 

“Similar stories of state kidnap of children who have parents who recognise the harm of the quasi-religious authoritarian cult of trans have been reported in Canada, USA, Australia and I suspect many have gone unreported elsewhere.

“I have been raising the alarm for some time about this overreach.  One must ask who is pushing this and why they might be doing it.  Nothing I’ve come up with is anything other than malevolent.

“Parents must not sleepwalk into surrendering our most important duty, protecting our children.  Trust your instincts and talk to your children.

“In the UK, many schools refuse to use “son”, “daughter”, “child” or “children”, and prefer to use “your young person”.  We must fight this creep of erasing both the relation to our children and the fact they’re children.”

More reactions, quotes and full background can be found here. To support the case and the parents click here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only