issued by the Registrar of the Court
no. 910
30.11.2010
Restriction of contact arrangements between a transsexual and
her six-year-old son was in the child’s best interests
had been:
No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in
conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Principal facts
The applicant, P.V., is a Spanish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Lugo
(Spain). She is a male-to-female transsexual who, prior to her gender reassignment, had
a son with P.Q.F. in 1998. When they separated in 2002 the judge approved the
amicable agreement they had concluded, by which custody of the child was awarded to
the mother and parental responsibility to both parents jointly. The agreement also laid
down contact arrangements for the applicant, who was to spend every other weekend
and half of the school holidays with the child.
In May 2004 P.Q.F. applied to have P.V. deprived of parental responsibility and to have
the contact arrangements and any communication between the father and the child
suspended, arguing that the father had shown a lack of interest in the child and adding
that P.V. was undergoing hormone treatment with a view to gender reassignment and
usually wore make-up and dressed like a woman. P.Q.F.’s application was dismissed in
respect of the first point.
As regards the contact arrangements, the judge decided to restrict them rather than
suspend them entirely. Since ordinary contact arrangements could not be made on
account of P.V.’s lack of emotional stability, a gradual arrangement was put in place,
initially involving a three-hour meeting every other Saturday “until [P.V.] undergoes
surgery and fully recovers her physical and psychological capacities”. The judge pointed
out that P.V. had begun the gender-reassignment process only a few months earlier and
that it entailed far-reaching changes to all aspects of her life and her personality and
hence emotional instability, a characteristic noted by the psychologist in her report.
That decision was upheld by the Audiencia Provincial, which reiterated that ordinary
contact arrangements could undermine the child’s emotional stability. The child would
have to come to terms gradually with his father’s decision, which he was in the process
of doing since they enjoyed a good emotional relationship. As regards the applicant’s
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
