As already reported by Háttér Society (Háttér Társaság), courts unanimously consider those decisions of guardianship authorities discriminatory that reject the suitability of gay and lesbian clients applying for adoption solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. At the end of November 2025, the Budapest Metropolitan Court had had enough of the guardianship authority failing to follow the court’s guidance even in the third repeated procedure and, exercising its legal right, determined the applicant’s suitability for adoption by itself.
The client of Háttér Society applied for a determination of his suitability as a sole adopter in December 2020, before the restrictive legislation currently in force came to be. The man has been in a relationship with his same-sex partner, with whom he is participating in the procedure, for many yearsbut since joint adoption is not possible, only one of them applied. The child welfare service (TEGYESZ) recommended that the man be deemed eligible for adoption in all cases, but the guardianship authority rejected this recommendation four times, deeming the applicant unfit for adoption on the basis of unprofessional, unscientific, and prejudiced arguments. The court overturned the first three rejections by the guardianship authority and ordered a new procedure, which had the same outcome, despite the clear court guidance on what arguments could be taken into account in the decision-making process.
It was as if the staff of the guardianship authority (operating as part of the Budapest Capital Government Office) just kept shrugging off the rulings, and, in early May 2025, they once again made a decision contrary to the judgment, rejecting the application. In the court proceedings initiated against the decision, the Budapest Metropolitan Court had had enough of the guardianship authority openly defying its ruling three times and exercised its right to override it: it declared Háttér Society’s client suitable for adoption.
The court again distinguished between the decision on suitability for adoption and the decision to grant adoption: the former concerns the adopter and their circumstances, while the latter must examine the best interests of the child above all else. However, the criteria to be examined in the two stages must not be conflated; suitability cannot be examined hypothetically from the perspective of a child who, at that stage of the proceedings, is unknown. The court emphasized that “none of the laws on adoption contain a provision stating that a person’s attraction to their own sex would automatically exclude them from being eligible to adopt.”
The fact that he lives with his same-sex partner already puts him at a disadvantage from the outset, as Hungarian law does not allow them to marry; and when granting adoption permission – i.e. when looking for adoptive parents for a specific child – married couples must be given preference. Nor can it be considered a disadvantage to the applicant that he will not be able to provide a maternal role model for the child, as this interpretation “would result in single persons not being declared eligible for adoption at all,” but this is not precluded by the current law, which allows for single adoption. Since, again contrary to the previous judgment, the guardianship authority acted unlawfully, the court found the determination of suitability to be well-founded.
In another case represented by Háttér Society, where the guardianship authority had rejected the applicant’s suitability for adoption with his same-sex partner only once so far, the court, in its judgment overturning the decision and ordering a new procedure, expressly warned the authority that “the provisions of the final judgment are binding on everyone, including public authorities, and the enforcement of judgments is a fundamental condition for the enforcement of legal certainty.”
“The courts consistently enforce the requirement of equal treatment and overturn prejudiced and discriminatory decisions by the guardianship authorities. However, the guardianship authorities simply ignore court rulings and continue to follow the government’s exclusionary position. The Budapest Metropolitan Court put an end to this fruitless ping-pong game in the above case by determining suitability, and we hope that the courts will follow this example in other similar cases. It is unacceptable that people who could provide a loving family for children raised in the child protection system are forced into years of litigation,” commented Eszter Polgári, head of the Legal Program at Háttér Society.
The rules of adoption changed significantly in March 2021. Since then, unmarried applicants for adoption can only obtain a suitability certificate with special ministerial permission, meaning that it is not professionals but a politician who has the final say on suitability for adoption. According to information from the relevant ministry in May 2024, the minister has approved all applications submitted so far. However, in the experience of Háttér Society, applications from same-sex couples do not even reach the minister because local authorities discourage such applicants from submitting their applications or declare them unsuitable. Háttér Society is providing legal representation in 7 proceedings initiated before and after March 2021, and in all of these cases, the court has ruled that the guardianship authority’s decision to reject the application was unlawful, in some cases on multiple occasions.
Social attitudes towards same-sex couples raising children have changed significantly in Hungary in recent years. While in 2019 only 17% fully agreed that members of a same-sex couple could be good parents, by October 2023 this figure had risen to 66%. 60% of Hungarians believed that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.
Háttér Society conducts its strategic litigation activities concerning same-sex couples’ access to parenthood with the support of the Common Values program, which is funded by the European Union’s Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) program and implemented by the ÖKOTÁRS Foundation and its partners.
Translation by Zsófia Ziaja
