Insights
7 Landmark Rulings on the Legal Recognition of Diverse Families
Region(s)
Type
Commentary
Author(s)
Publish Date
February 17, 2025
Share
The legal recognition of diverse families has been a long-standing issue across the globe, with landmark rulings marking significant strides toward equality and justice. From the fight for LGBTIQ parental rights to the battle for transgender parents' legal recognition, several court decisions have challenged discriminatory laws and set precedents for future cases. In this article, we explore seven landmark rulings that have redefined family rights and contributed to the global movement for legal recognition of all families, showcasing the transformative impact of these legal battles in the pursuit of human rights.
1. A legal battle for equal parenthood in South Africa
Summary of J and B v. Director General, Department of Home Affairs (2003)
Before South Africa legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, same-sex couples faced legal barriers to being recognized as equal parents. J and B, a lesbian couple in a long-term committed relationship, decided to have children through artificial insemination. The second applicant carried the pregnancy, using sperm from an anonymous donor and an egg from the first applicant. However, when they sought to have both their names listed on their children’s birth certificates, the Department of Home Affairs refused, stating that only the birth mother could be legally recognized.
Determined to secure equal parental rights, J and B took their case to the Constitutional Court of South Africa, challenging the Children’s Status Act of 1987. The law stated that when artificial insemination was used, the resulting child would be considered the legitimate child of the mother and her husband, provided both had consented. This excluded same-sex couples, which J and B argued was unconstitutional. They contended that this provision discriminated against them, violating the constitutional guarantee that no one may be unfairly discriminated against on grounds including sexual orientation.
In a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court declared a section of the law unconstitutional, stating that it unfairly excluded same-sex life partners from legal parenthood. The court ruled that permanent same-sex life partners must be included in the law, ensuring that both partners in a same-sex relationship could be legally recognized as parents. The judgment modified the wording of Section 5 to replace "husband" with "husband or permanent same-sex life partner", thereby extending legal recognition to same-sex couples. The ruling also required the Department of Home Affairs to amend regulations to allow both parents to be listed on birth certificates.
This decision was a crucial victory for LGBTQ parental rights, reinforcing that legal parenthood should not be restricted based on sexual orientation and setting a precedent for the recognition of diverse families in South Africa.
2. A judge's fight for her children
Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile (2012)
Karen Atala Riffo, a Chilean judge and mother of three children, led a conventional life with her husband until their divorce in 2002. That same year, a Chilean court granted her custody of their children, following the standard legal practice at the time, which typically awarded custody to one parent rather than a shared arrangement. In 2023, Atala began a relationship with a woman. Her ex-husband then contested the custody ruling, arguing that her sexual orientation would negatively affect their children's development. In 2004, the Chilean Supreme Court ruled against Atala, transferring custody to her ex-husband. The decision was not based on evidence of harm but rather on societal prejudice—suggesting that the children might suffer confusion and social stigma due to their mother’s same-sex relationship.
Atala took her case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which later referred it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in 2010. She argued that Chile had violated her rights under the American Convention on Human Rights, particularly her rights to equality and non-discrimination (Article 24), privacy (Article 11), and protection of the family (Article 17).
In a landmark ruling in 2012, the Inter-American Court ruled in Atala’s favor, stating that Chile had discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. The Court emphasized that parental rights cannot be restricted solely because of a person’s sexual orientation and that such discrimination violates human rights. Importantly, this was the first time the Court explicitly recognized sexual orientation as a protected category under the American Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling set a crucial precedent for LGBTQ+ rights across Latin America, reinforcing that sexual orientation cannot be used to justify discrimination in custody cases or other legal matters. It also pushed Chile to adopt more inclusive policies regarding LGBTQ+ families. For Atala, the decision was not just a personal victory but a historic moment in the fight for equality in the region.
3. The case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the U.S.
Obergefell v. Hodges Case (2015)
For years, same-sex couples across the United States faced legal barriers that prevented them from marrying or having their unions recognized. One of those couples was Jim Obergefell and John Arthur, who had been together for over two decades. In 2013, after learning that Arthur was terminally ill with ALS, the couple decided to marry in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal at the time. However, their home state of Ohio refused to recognize their marriage. This denial had devastating consequences—when Arthur passed away later that year, Ohio refused to list Obergefell as his surviving spouse on the death certificate.
Determined to fight for their rights, Obergefell and several other plaintiffs challenged state bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. These cases were consolidated under Obergefell v. Hodges and brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. The plaintiffs argued that the bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which guarantee fundamental rights and protection against discrimination.
On June 26, 2015, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, making it legal across the entire country. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” and that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violated their dignity and equality under the law.
The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges built on previous LGBTQ+ legal victories, including United States v. Windsor (2013), which had struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. However, Obergefell was the definitive ruling that ensured marriage equality nationwide, forcing all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
For Jim Obergefell, the ruling was bittersweet—though he won the legal battle, his husband did not live to see the victory. Still, the case became a landmark moment in LGBTQ+ history, affirming that love and commitment deserve legal recognition, regardless of gender.
4. Trans people’s rights to be parents: The case that ended forced sterilization in France
A.P., Garçon, and Nicot v. France Case (2017)
For years, transgender people in France who wanted legal recognition of their gender identity had to make an impossible choice. The law required them to undergo sterilization or other irreversible medical procedures to change their gender markers on official documents, effectively stripping them of their reproductive rights and the ability to form biological families. This meant sacrificing bodily autonomy, dignity, and the possibility of having children in the future, just to have their identity legally acknowledged.
Among those who refused to accept this were A.P., Emile Garçon, and Stéphane Nicot, three transgender individuals who had each taken different steps in their transitions but were all denied legal recognition because they had not undergone sterilization. A.P. had already had gender-affirming surgeries abroad but refused further medical examinations demanded by French courts. Garçon had undergone hormone therapy and surgery but was denied recognition because he lacked sufficient medical documentation of a gender identity disorder diagnosis. Nicot, who lived openly as a woman, had chosen not to undergo surgery and was rejected for not meeting the “irreversible procedure” requirement.
They took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that France’s requirements violated their rights to privacy and personal autonomy. On April 6, 2017, the Court ruled in their favor, declaring that forcing transgender people to undergo sterilization for legal gender recognition violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to private and family life. The judgment affirmed that no one should have to undergo unnecessary medical procedures to have their gender legally recognized.
The ruling had an immediate impact. France changed its legal framework, removing the sterilization requirement and allowing transgender people to obtain legal recognition without being forced to undergo medical interventions. The case also set a precedent for other European countries, reinforcing that transgender rights are human rights and that legal recognition must not come at the cost of bodily autonomy.
5. How Taiwan made history with same-sex marriage
Chi Chia-wei and Taipei City Government Case (2017–2019)
For decades, Chi Chia-wei had been fighting for the right to marry. A longtime LGBTQ+ activist in Taiwan, he had first attempted to register a same-sex marriage in 1986, only to be swiftly denied. At the time, Taiwan was still under martial law, and LGBTQ rights were barely acknowledged. But Chi never gave up. He continued advocating for equality, facing social stigma, political resistance, and even imprisonment along the way. By the 2010s, public attitudes had begun to shift, but legal recognition remained out of reach.
In 2013, Chi tried once again to register his marriage with his partner. The application was denied, and this time, he took the fight to the Constitutional Court, arguing that Taiwan’s Civil Code, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights to equality and freedom of marriage. At the same time, the Taipei City Government had also sought legal clarification after receiving multiple same-sex marriage applications it was unable to process.
On May 24, 2017, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court issued a groundbreaking decision: the existing ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The justices ruled that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated both the right to equality and the freedom to marry, as protected by the Constitution. The court gave the Legislative Yuan two years to amend the law or create a new legal framework. If the government failed to act within that time, same-sex couples would automatically gain the right to marry.
The ruling sparked both celebration and backlash. While LGBTQ activists hailed it as a historic victory, conservative groups mobilized against it. In November 2018, a referendum showed that a majority of voters opposed same-sex marriage being recognized under the Civil Code. The government, however, was bound by the Constitutional Court’s ruling and had to find a way to implement marriage equality while addressing political resistance.
On February 20, 2019, the Executive Yuan introduced a draft bill specifically recognizing same-sex marriage without altering the Civil Code. The bill faced heated debates but was ultimately passed by the Legislative Yuan on May 17, 2019.
6. The cost of being a trans mother in Russia
A.M. and Others v. Russia (2021)
A.M. was a transgender woman living in Russia. According to her official documents, she was “male,” and she had married a woman and had two children with her in the early 2000s. For years, A.M. presented as male, fulfilling traditional expectations of fatherhood in her family. However, in 2015, she began her gender transition—a deeply personal journey that, in Russia’s increasingly restrictive environment for LGBTQ+ individuals, also became a legal and social battle.
After her transition, A.M.’s ex-wife filed a case in Russian courts, arguing that her gender transition would negatively impact their children’s psychological well-being. Despite there being no evidence of harm or misconduct as a parent, Russian courts ruled in favor of the ex-wife. In 2017, A.M. was restricted from seeing her children. By 2018, her contact with them was completely severed. The court’s justification rested solely on her gender identity, reflecting the widespread discrimination against transgender individuals in Russia.
Determined to fight for her rights, A.M. took her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2019. She argued that Russia had violated her right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She also claimed that the decision violated the non-discrimination provisions in Article 14 of the Convention, as it was based entirely on her identity as a transgender woman rather than any concerns about her ability to parent.
In 2021, the ECtHR ruled in favor of A.M., concluding that Russia had unlawfully restricted her parental rights and deprived her of contact with her children based on prejudice rather than legitimate concerns. The Court emphasized that decisions regarding parental rights must be based on the best interests of the children, not societal biases. It found that Russian authorities had failed to justify their actions with any factual evidence, relying instead on stereotypes and discrimination. Activists consulted indicate that Russia ignored the ruling, as in other human rights cases.
This ruling set an important precedent, reaffirming that transgender parents should not be denied their rights solely because of their gender identity. While the decision was a victory for A.M., it also highlighted the broader challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals in Russia, where legal protections remain weak and societal discrimination persists.
7. The Morán family’s journey toward equal rights in Peru
Ricardo, Catalina, and Emiliano Morán Case (2023)
Ricardo Morán, a well-known Peruvian television producer and openly gay man, became the father of twins, Catalina and Emiliano, through surrogacy in 2019. Given that same-sex couples and single men face legal obstacles to parenthood in Peru, Morán opted for surrogacy in California, where the process is legally recognized and he was registered as the sole legal parent of his children.
When Morán attempted to register Catalina and Emiliano in Peru, the National Registry of Identification and Civil Status Office denied his request, arguing that the Peruvian Civil Code explicitly requires a mother to be listed on a birth certificate. This refusal had serious consequences—without Peruvian nationality, his children were legally invisible in the country. They lacked access to health care, education, and other rights granted to Peruvian citizens, leaving them in a state of legal limbo.
Determined to secure his children’s rights, Morán filed a lawsuit in 2021, arguing that the Registry decision violated Catalina and Emiliano’s fundamental rights to identity, nationality, equality, and non-discrimination. However, the case faced significant legal resistance. Both the lower court and the appellate court ruled against the Morán family, relying on the restrictive language in the Civil Code.
Unwilling to accept defeat, Morán escalated the case to the Constitutional Court of Peru, the highest judicial authority on constitutional matters. In September 2023, the Court issued a landmark ruling in his favor, ordering the Registry to immediately register Catalina and Emiliano with Morán’s surnames and recognize their Peruvian nationality.
The ruling was significant in several ways. It not only ensured that Morán’s children would no longer be stateless in their father’s home country but also urged Congress to reform the Civil Code to eliminate the discriminatory barriers that prevent fathers from registering their children without a mother’s name. However, Congress has yet to comply with this mandate.
For Morán, the ruling was both a personal victory and a historic moment for LGBTQ rights in Peru. It challenged deep-rooted biases in family law and affirmed that all children—regardless of their parents’ marital status or sexual orientation—deserve equal recognition and protection under the law.
Take Action
When you support our research, you support a growing global movement and celebrate LGBTIQ lives everywhere.
Donate Now