A Swiss mother and father are “heartbroken” and face criminal charges unless they hand over identity documents to verify their estranged teenage daughter’s “sex change” identity and gender transition as a male, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) ruled.
The 17-year-old girl had been taken from her parents a year-and-a-half ago after they objected to her “transition.” She has lived in a government shelter since April 2023 where the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state.
The supreme court backed a ruling by the Court of Justice in Geneva ordering the parents to comply and hand over the identity documents to enable the girl to legally record her sex change.
The family’s identities have not revealed for privacy and legal reasons— but the parents feel crushed after the supreme court ruling, according to a press release by legal rights group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International published on Monday (Dec. 9).
“We are heartbroken,” said the girl’s father, after the court decision. “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,” he said, adding, “We are considering our next steps.”
Attorneys from ADF International, supporting the parents, argued in court that both the Swiss Federal Constitution and international law protected the parents’ right to act in their daughter’s best interest by not enabling her legal “sex change.”
However, the supreme court rejected the appeal on the grounds that an intervention in the previous ruling would “violate the principle of the separation of powers,” according to ADF International.
“The situation complained of cannot therefore be remedied by interpretation,” stated the court decision, as reported by ADF International. “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.”
ADF International reported the case background as starting when the girl was 13 and suffering mental health issues. Both parents were worried their daughter was being pushed to make impulsive and irreversible decisions when she first claimed to be a boy.
The findings of the Cass Review in the U.K., which criticized a number of aspects of “gender affirmative care,” confirmed the parents’ concerns about risks and harms of this model, stated ADF International. The law firm said recent criticism about gender transition care in Chile was another influencing factor for the parents.
The parents subsequently refused to allow their daughter to take “puberty blockers” and told her school they were not allowed to “socially transition” her either. They arranged private mental health care.
Yet the school did not comply with the parents’ directions for their daughter. ADF International said the school “socially transitioned” the girl anyway and liaised with a state child welfare agency, Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI) and a transgender-activist organisation.
Then the girl was separated from her parents. Legal authority for her medical care was also taken from the mother and father and SPMI given the parental responsibility.
Both parents appealed to recover the legal authority—but lost the court case. A court ordered them to hand over the identity documents for the legal sex change.
After the supreme court hearing, Felix Böllmann, director of European advocacy for ADF International, pointed out that the motives of the parents for their daughter had been to put her needs first.
“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,” said Böllmann.
“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.”
The parents' appeal in the Federal Court was made 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).
Their legal argument has been they should not be forced to enable their daughter’s legal “sex change”, since it is not in the child’s best interest
“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,” stated ADF International.
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.
The case has been widely reported, with an online video seen 66 million times. Billionaire tycoon and owner of X Elon Musk reportedly commented: “This is insane. This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization.”
The parents are now considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that they have a legal right to care for their daughter without state interference.
