Recent incidents of domestic violence and violence among minors have brought to the forefront the issue of protecting the most vulnerable members of society, children and adolescents. Unfortunately, the LGBTQI community also counts such victims among its members, as children and adolescents are victims of physical and psychological violence on a daily basis, even within their own families, culminating in the violent beating of a teenager by his father in the Patras area after he revealed his sexual orientation in June 2024. This article attempts to examine the means provided by our law to protect minors within the family context and to highlight “good practices” which, in light of the rise of far-right rhetoric about “woke” agenda, are becoming critical.

Who are LGBTQI+ children and how are they protected within the family?

In very simple terms, they are the minor members of the LGBTQI+ community, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer children and adolescents. It is relatively easy to recognize adolescents as members of the community, but when can we consider a child to be part of the community without being accused of promoting a woke agenda?

It should be noted that regardless of whether one can speak of sexual orientation in childhood, a child’s gender identity, which may be experienced differently from that assigned at birth, is perceived by the child at a very early stage of their life.

How, then, is this identity protected? At this age, we are not, of course, talking about legal recognition of identity, but about the need for a child’s gender expression to be treated with respect and in accordance with the so-called affirming model. According to the Orlando LGBT report dated October 8, 2022, entitled “Trans (intersex) children: Contemporary scientific data on the role of parents and family,” gender identity is one of the core identities of an individual and its recognition or exploration can occur at any age. In particular, according to the report, “Some children exhibit and express a gender identity that differs from the gender assigned to them at birth, or may have interests that are not typically associated with the gender assigned to them. At the same time, some other children may feel that they do not have a gender or that their gender is somewhere between boy and girl. In any case, the most recent and authoritative research data consistently indicate that the optimal adaptation and well-being of children in the long term is achieved when an affirmative approach (or affirmative model) is followed. Such an approach includes recognizing that there is no gender identity that is pathological, that each person’s gender is expressed in many different ways, that each gender identity is a product of the interaction between biology, development, socialization, culture, and context, and that any mental health challenges that may arise are linked to or reinforced by discrimination and social stigma around gender identity issues in the family, school, and wider social environment. Under no circumstances are gender diversity/transgender identities a diagnosable mental illness or something that needs to be cured, regardless of the age at which they appear.

The term “trans” or queer child may sound strange, but essentially we are talking about children with signs of gender diversity, i.e., children who experience their gender in a way that corresponds to a social gender different from their biological gender. A different category is that of intersex children, who are now rightly protected by Law 4958/2022 from “corrective” surgery (according to Article 20 of the law “Doctors who perform medical procedures or treatments on intersex minors in violation of Article 17, in addition to the disciplinary and administrative penalties provided for, shall be punished with imprisonment of at least six months and a fine. Repeated commission of the act referred to in the first paragraph shall constitute an aggravating circumstance. In any case and regardless of the severity of the penalty imposed, the perpetrator shall also be punished with the additional penalty provided for in Article 65 of the Criminal Code on the prohibition of practicing a profession).

The right of every child and adolescent, regardless of the above labels, which have been created to express the experience and life of adult members of the community, to freely develop their identity in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Greece has ratified by passing Law No. 2101/1992 of December 2, 1992, (1. The States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law, without unlawful interference).

Furthermore, under Article 2 of the Convention, the Contracting States undertake to respect the rights set forth in the present Convention and to ensure them to every child within their jurisdiction, without any discrimination based on the child’s or his or her parents’ or legal guardians’ race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions of the child or his or her parents or legal guardians, or their national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, their birth or any other status. The protective scope of this article is understood to include the protection of children from discrimination on the grounds of their parents’ “deviant” status from “traditional” norms, e.g. because of their sexual orientation, it must therefore be accepted that the concept of other status also includes cases of children who themselves “deviate” from heteronormative standards. Finally, according to Article 19 of the Convention, States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, ill-treatment or exploitation, including sexual violence, while in the care of his or her parents or one of them, or of his or her legal guardians or any other person to whom he or she is entrusted. Such forms of violence, from which States must protect children and adolescents, naturally include violence based on their gender orientation or identity.

In particular, the protection of LGBTQI children and adolescents in the context of parental care and the right of parents to communicate.

According to Article 1511 of the Civil Code, any decision by parents regarding the exercise of parental care must be in the best interests of the child. The court’s decision must also respect equality between parents and not discriminate on the basis of, in particular, gender, sexual orientation, race, language, religion, political or other beliefs, nationality, national or social origin, or property. Depending on the child’s maturity, their opinion must be sought and taken into account before any decision relating to parental care and their interests is made.

The concept of the best interests of the child is therefore a vague concept that is specified in each case according to the specific circumstances of the child’s life. As with all children, the interest those who behave differently from the prevailing “heteronormative” norm (blue for boys, pink for girls) is reflected in the above concept of parental acceptance. The fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are not subject to “change” and that any attempt at “correction” by parents constitutes abuse is also the rationale behind the relatively recent law prohibiting conversion therapy. Despite the obvious gaps in the law (which only raises the issue of consent for adults under legal guardianship), it is equally obvious, given the relevant criminal protection, that parental behavior aimed at changing the identity of minors, as abuse, should fall within the cases of poor exercise of parental care and trigger the protection network of Articles 1532 et seq. of the Civil Code concerning the removal of parental custody on grounds of abuse. The same conclusion is reached by Article 4 of Law 3500/2006 on domestic violence, according to which “in cases of physical or psychological violence against a minor in the context of his or her upbringing, Article 1532 of the Civil Code shall apply.”

Similarly, Article 10^A, which was added to the above law by Article 14 of Law 5172/2025, Government Gazette A 10/29.01.2025, provides that “the public prosecutor of first instance who receives a complaint of domestic violence shall immediately and ex officio examine the applicability of the fifth paragraph of Article 1532 of the Civil Code on the consequences of poor exercise of parental care, and, if he considers that it does not apply, he shall make a note to that effect in the case file.”

It should also be noted that the corresponding French law prohibiting conversion therapy provides directly for this sanction, i.e., the removal of parental custody from the parents in the event of a conviction.

This means that in cases of attempts by parents to convert their children (whether through psychological or physical violence, or indirectly through visits to “specialists” in mental health and “religion”) we must proceed to the removal of parental custody from the parent and its assignment to someone who is in a position to provide the child/adolescent with an environment conducive to the safe and smooth development of their identity. It should be added that, similarly, the fact that the criminal protection of the law prohibiting conversion therapy does not extend to representatives of the church does not mean that  as far as civil law is concerned, the relevant behavior cannot constitute grounds for poor exercise of parental care (the list of which in Article 1532 of the Civil Code is indicative). Finally, in cases where the health of the child is in immediate danger, the public prosecutor may intervene on his own initiative by taking protective measures such as removing the abusive parent from the family home, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the last paragraph of Article 1532, according to which ‘in extremely urgent cases, provided that the conditions of the first paragraph are met and there is an imminent danger to the physical or mental health of the child, the public prosecutor shall order any appropriate measure for the protection of the child until the court issues its decision, to which he must refer within ninety (90) days, with the possibility of a reasoned extension of this period by a further ninety (90) days.”

At the same time, according to paragraph 2 of Article 312 of the Criminal Code, the deliberate infliction of mental pain capable of causing serious mental harm, in particular through prolonged isolation, is treated as physical violence. Attempts by a parent to convert a child using methods such as “isolation,” deprivation of food or nourishment, etc., could also be considered a form of violence. However, it is not necessary to go to extremes for the need for relevant protection to be triggered. In other words, in cases of parental dispute over the custody of children who show signs of “difference,” custody should be awarded to the most suitable parent, who is none other than the one who ensures the child’s unconditional acceptance. Similarly, corresponding behavior by the parent, even if it does not extend to acts of violence but remains limited to expressions of verbal disapproval, use of homophobic or abusive language, and the expression of homophobic or transphobic views in front of the child, even if it is not intended to do so, should constitute grounds for restricting communication under Article 1520 of the Civil Code.

It should also be noted that where such abusive behavior is exhibited by both parents and cannot be remedied by less severe means, such as the intervention of a social worker or counselor, it should lead to the removal of parental custody from the parents and its assignment to a third party, preferably a close member of the family, e.g. an uncle, who can ensure the appropriate conditions for the child’s upbringing, while the provisions for guardianship of minors are activated.

In the event of parental disagreement

The court should take a similar approach when deciding in cases of parental disagreement in general, in accordance with Article 1512 of the Civil Code, i.e. the choice that is in the best interests of the child should be promoted, rather than an attempt at ‘conformism’ , e.g. choice of activities for the child, change of school if the child is being bullied at school, etc.

Furthermore, the best interests of the child must be the guiding principle for decisions on medical procedures that minors may have to undergo in the event of a disagreement between the parents. A particularly problematic case is therefore that of a disagreement between parents regarding the submission of their minor children to medical procedures and treatments, such as surgery or hormone therapy, for the total or partial change of their sex characteristics.

In particular, with regard to legal recognition of gender identity, paragraph 2 of Article 3 of Law 4491/2017 stipulates that in the case of minors who have reached the age of 15, in addition to a positive opinion from an interdisciplinary committee established by joint decision of the Ministers of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights and Health for two (2) years, comprising: a) a child psychiatrist, b) a psychiatrist, c) an endocrinologist, d) a pediatric surgeon, e) a psychologist, f) a social worker and g) a pediatrician, as Chair, all with expertise in the specific issue, the explicit consent of the persons exercising parental responsibility is required.

Similarly, according to Article 17 of Law 4958/2022, an intersex minor who has reached the age of fifteen (15) may undergo medical procedures and treatments, such as surgery or hormone therapy, for the total or partial change of sex characteristics, i.e., chromosomal, genetic, and anatomical characteristics of the face, including primary characteristics, such as reproductive organs, and secondary characteristics, such as muscle mass, the development of breasts or hair, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 2 of Law 4491/2017 (A` 152), only with the free consent, after being informed, of the person concerned and the persons exercising parental responsibility or guardianship, in accordance with subparagraph aa) of paragraph b) of paragraph 2 of Article 12 of Law 3418/2005 (A` 287), concerning the conditions for the provision of valid consent by a minor patient for the performance of medical acts by a doctor. The Code of Medical Ethics stipulates that with regard to special procedures, such as transplants, medically assisted reproduction methods, sex change or restoration operations, aesthetic or cosmetic procedures, the consent of both parents is required, provided that they exercise joint parental responsibility.

On the other hand, an intersex minor who has not reached the age of fifteen (15) may undergo the medical procedures and treatments referred to in paragraph 1 only with the permission of the minor’s parents or, if they are deceased or unavailable, with the permission of the minor’s guardian or, in the absence of a guardian, with the permission of the minor’s legal representative. 1, only after obtaining permission granted by the Magistrates’ Court of the minor’s place of residence [permission may only be granted for medical procedures or treatments that cannot be postponed, until the minor reaches the age of fifteen (15) and do not entail other future, irreversible or significant complications for the minor’s health. By way of exception, such permission is not required when the medical procedure or treatment is necessary to prevent danger to the life or health of the minor, within the meaning of points (a) and (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 12 of Law 3418/2005, and cannot be postponed until the court has issued its decision]. 3 of Article 12 of Law 3418/2005 and cannot be postponed until the court decision is issued].

Comparing the two provisions, while in the case of legal correction of the registered sex, the consent of the other parent is also required, provided that he or she exercises parental responsibility (i.e. even in cases where custody is exercised exclusively by one parent), in the case of intersex persons, the law appears to make the parents’ consent dependent on whether they have custody of the minor (and not on the broader parental responsibility, which they generally continue to exercise even when custody is granted exclusively to one parent). However, the Code of Medical Ethics, to which the law itself refers, generally requires for sex reassignment or restoration procedures the consent of both parents. A first question is therefore whether the medical acts referred to in the law, which may be in the best interests of the minor, fall within the concept of sex reassignment or restoration surgery.

In any case, the disagreement must be legally resolved by the court in accordance with Article 1512 of the Civil Code and in the best interests of the child, as specified in the particular case. It should also be noted that the refusal, for example, of a parent to consent to the appropriate medical procedure, when that parent has behaved abusively and rejectingly towards the minor because of their gender identity, should be considered abusive and therefore overruled by the court.

Conclusion:

It is important to emphasize, in conclusion, the obvious, namely that the above guiding principles and legal commitments must be translated within the family context into unconditional love and acceptance of children by their parents. However, since we cannot guarantee acceptance, the question now is how we as a society can shape their legal protection.