The last summer breeze is blowing through Yekaterinburg when a knock echoes at Francis Savinovskikh’s door. When he opens, social service officials show him an order, come in and take his two five-year old sons. The removal caught him completely by surprise. In just a few minutes, the officials had packed up his children’s belongings and rushed off with the two boys. Francis had no idea the turn his life had just taken.

Francis, assigned female at birth and named Yulia by his parents, identifies as male. From a young age, he embraced his male identity, leaving behind the name and sex assigned to him at birth. However, his Russian documents still reflect his birth name and sex, as the Russian Duma banned “sex change” procedures in 2023. Francis had recently been diagnosed with “transsexualism” by a psychiatric hospital – a gender identity “disorder” deemed “incurable” by the Russian Society of Psychiatists. This was what eventually led to the removal of his children. What complicates matters, legally, is that Francis is not their biological father. He has been their foster father and has parented both children since he first bonded with them at the public care facility where they had lived up until they moved in with Francis and his family.

Days before the children were taken from Francis by the officials, social services visited Francis and found the family home to be “unsatisfactory”. Then, social services issued an order to terminate the custody and foster care agreement for the care of his children, citing a conflict of interest as the “diagnosis” of him being transsexual, the double mastectomy he had recently undergone, the pictures he had posted on his social network in which he presented himself as a male and appealed to obtain legal recognition of his new gender identity, and his request to receive surgical and hormonal treatment so as to change his body in accordance with his chosen male gender, had “affected the physical, spiritual and moral development of the children”. As his children were being taken, he was asked to sign a friendly settlement agreement to end the foster care arrangement, which amounted to voluntarily surrendering his foster children. He refused. The children were placed back in public care. Since then, Francis has been fighting to get his children back.

Francis will surely not be the last foster parent affected by the Russian Federation’s increasingly oppressive tactics to execute its trans- and homophobic legislation. Families, in which a spouse who is also a (biological, foster, and/or adoptive) parent is a transgender person, have become “invisible” since Russia does not recognize family unions besides those in which a man and a woman are married. Francis is one of 19 percent of EU transgender persons who are biological parents or parents to adopted or foster children. In fact, transgender individuals are more likely to be raising children compared to the overall LGBTI community in the EU, of which only about 14 percent are raising children.

Despite these growing numbers, and perhaps surprisingly, parents that are transgender or non-binary lack a legally formalized relationship with their children – not just in Russia, but also across the entire EU. They are statistically still the most likely to lack a legally recognized relationship with their children (21.84 percent) compared to the broader LGBTI-parent population (18.44 percent). Only Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden fully recognize the legal rights of transgender parents, which allows parents to have, for example, their legal gender identity recognized on their children’s birth certificate. Furthermore, Iceland recognizes the same legal rights for non-binary parents. This means that more than two gender markers such as mother/father are available to parents there. Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom and France recognize, either through national or case-law, the rights of transgender persons in respect of gender recognition, non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and the right to family life in the form of foster parenting. Francis has lodged an application against the Russian Federation with the European Human Rights Courts (ECHR) to regain custody of his foster children, and the case known as Savinovskikh and Others v. Russia has since become a landmark case. It is a case in which an “unconventional” family sought justice at the European Court of Human Rights – but Francis’ case also stands as a proxy for the countless similar cases where equally-affected transgender parents did not make it to court to get their children back. While the number of similar cases brought to the ECHR is growing, each one remains significant, underscoring the widespread and systemic nature of challenges faced by non-traditional families. Francis’ case, therefore, highlights the broader impact of the diverse state policies on “unconventional” family structures and the persistent struggle for recognition and equality.

Has the Russian state overstepped its margin of appreciation by taking Francis’ children into custody? After all, there exists a right to respect for private and family life, despite the state’s reservations. Thus, from a legal standpoint the answer is yes, as the Court’s previous rulings had already established that family life also encompasses the bond between a foster family and a foster child, even in the absence of a biological relationship. In layman’s terms this means that in Francis’, as in and many others’ cases, the state has indeed interfered with the personal lives of certain individuals in an arbitrary fashion.

If human rights can be swayed on shifting public attitudes and opinions rather than a consistent standard, this not only amounts to a legal inconsistency, but a more general one that risks discriminating against LGBTQIA+ individuals, with states endorsing or perpetuating homophobia by treating certain groups as “less worthy” of legal standards. This conflicts with the core values upheld by institutions like the EU and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which aim to protect rights universally and unconditionally. Arbitrary state interference is thus not just a legal matter but deserves also its own perspective from a moral point of view.

In terms of ethics, Francis’ case underscores the conflict between an individual’s right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world which is a core element of the right to respect for private and family life and the dangers of state overreach in imposing legal, “cultural,” or “moral” standards on personal matters. Article 8 of the ECHR aims to protect private and family life, affirming that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." While it permits state interference for legitimate aims, such as "the interests of national security, public safety […] [or] the protection of health or morals […]," (paragraph 2, Article 8 ECHR) it requires that interference be both "in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society."

In Francis’ case, the state justified its interference by claiming that “his self-identification as male (…) had contradicted the principles of family legislation, traditions and mentality of the Russian society.” This justification, however, clashes with Francis’ right to build a family life in alignment with his gender identity. From a moral perspective, this raises critical questions about whether the state’s imposition of “moral or cultural” standards is truly necessary – or whether it infringes on personal freedom and the right to self-expression.

By seizing Francis’ children due to his gender identity, deemed by the state as conflicting with “family traditions and societal values,” authorities enforced a narrow, state-sanctioned definition of family that clashes with the Court’s more inclusive interpretation: Article 8 of the ECHR broadly protects private and family life, encompassing both traditional and de facto family ties, such as the bond between Francis and his children. The Russian Federation’s actions clearly violate the ECHR’s principles to prioritize individual rights over restrictive state interference and uphold universal respect for individual dignity and psychological integrity of a person. Given Article 8’s explicit protection of family life, the state’s intervention here, as confirmed by the Court, constitutes a violation of this principle, underscoring society’s obligation to critically examine such state justifications.

The question of whether Russia’s interference in Francis’ family life was justified as part of a democratic framework aligned with “modern medical standards and modern understanding of transgender persons’ identities,” also poses a significant legal challenge. Francis’ case underscores the Court’s impartial role in upholding human rights, interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as a living instrument that adapts to both the evolution of and new realities in European societies.

This opinionated stance perpetuates the exact stigmatization that the Court deems incompatible with the democratic principles of equality, tolerance, and diversity. The Court actively challenges such biases, recognizing that they “reinforce stigma and prejudice and encourage homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society”. The ECtHR holds that a democratic society rejects any stigmatization based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is built on “the equal dignity of individuals and is sustained by diversity, which it perceives not as a threat but as a source of enrichment.”

Despite the Court having found a violation of Francis’ right to respect for private and family life, in reality the outcome of the case has brought Francis little progress in getting his children back. One reason for this is bad timing – Russia was expulsed from the Council of Europe on 16 September 2022. But despite this, the ECHR ruled that it would retain jurisdiction to examine Francis’ application, as the facts underlying the alleged violation of the Convention occurred prior to that date.

Francis has since fled to Spain together with his husband and their two (other) biological children because of his fear of prosecution in Russia on account of his change of gender and being separated from his biological children. Meanwhile, his former foster children have been placed in another foster family who have since gained custody. There are no prospects that he will get the children back, he can only hope that their new foster family is “gracious” enough to let him at least visit his children once he feels secure enough to actually visit Russia again.

Legally, Russia remains obligated to put its legislation in place on the outcome of rulings initiated when it was still signatory to the ECHR. However, in practice, it is unlikely that transgender individuals in Russia will benefit from this judgment, as Russian authorities typically disregard decisions by the Court, especially those related to LGBTQIA+ individuals. The case remains nonetheless of great importance for all individuals in similar situations within the member states of the Council of Europe, as they will have to adapt their legal frameworks in line with the outcome of the judgment.