International adoptions by same-sex couples: the case before the Constitutional Court

Adoption and foster care of children residing abroad by same-sex couples in civil partnerships, for the attention of the Consulta. The issue was debated this morning at Constitutional Court, during the latest public hearing presided over by President Giovanni Amoroso, whose term of office is due to end on 13 November.

The judge presiding over the case, which was brought by an order of the Venice Juvenile Court dated 12 March 2026, is Judge Emanuela Navarretta . The Constitutional Court is called upon to examine the Adoption Act No. 184 of 1983, ‘The right of the child to a family’, insofar as it does not permit same-sex couples to submit a declaration of willingness to adopt a foreign child residing abroad and to apply to the Juvenile Court of the district in which they reside to have their suitability for adoption declared.

In her closing speech, the parties’ lawyer, Susanna Lollini, emphasised the importance of allowing the suitability of civilly partnered couples to be assessed in practice. ‘A child is a child regardless of the parents’ relationship. We are not talking about access to adoption but about the right to be assessed for suitability,’ remarked Susanna Lollini. ‘Everyone knows that, even if a couple is deemed suitable, they may still choose not to adopt the child. In fact, a child is placed with a family only if social services identify the necessary resources for that child.’ Lollini quotes the judge in Venice, who stated that the legal ban ‘no longer serves a legitimate purpose of protection. The key word,’ comments the lawyer, ‘I believe is “capacity”.... In fact, same-sex couples have been raising children for years and the children are doing well. We have known for years that being homosexual does not interfere with being a good parent’. Since even ‘a civilly partnered couple can provide a stable and harmonious environment’

On the other side, the State Legal Service, represented by Gianna Maria De Socio, argues that the question is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded: ‘Even though the legislature has not taken action,’ she points out during her statement – to date, the safeguards supporting adoption in special cases do in fact exist and appear to constitute a form of adequate protection, thereby preventing the emergence of a genuine gap in protection or a breach of the constitutional and supranational values indicated by the referring court.” The State Legal Service draws attention to stepchild adoption. “It is recognised by the Court of Cassation that couples may have access to special adoption. Now, regarding this provision on special adoption, it would appear that the ECHR also ruled on this in 2025, stating that it is adequate to effectively safeguard the interests of the child. To this may be added the fact that, whilst awaiting the legislature to implement the measures already urged by the Court – De Socio insists – that even though Parliament has not acted in the meantime, there have been other adjustments to the system, such as Judgment 79/2022 of this Court and those of the Court of Cassation in 2023 and 2024. Measures which – he concludes – have removed the critical issues associated with potential opposition to adoption by the biological parent’.

In a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court (No. 33 of 2025) has paved the way for international adoptions by single people by declaring Article 29-bis, paragraph 1, of Law No. 184 of 1983 – which had previously excluded such adoptions – to be unconstitutional. Thirty years earlier, in ruling 183 of 16 May 1994, the Court had examined the issue of adoption by single people, which had then been raised by the case of the claimant Dalila Di Lazzaro. On that occasion, the Constitutional Court did not declare the ban unconstitutional, but clearly indicated that the Strasbourg Convention authorised the legislature to extend the eligibility for single-parent adoption at its discretion. In effect, this was a political call to consider a reform that Parliament has never implemented. Further warnings to the legislature came with Judgments 32 and 33 of 2021, concerning the protection of children born through surrogacy and within same-sex parent couples. The Constitutional Court ruled that the current legislation, including adoption in special cases, did not guarantee full and timely protection for the child. In this context, the Constitutional Court formally urged the legislature to reform the adoption framework to accommodate new social realities and safeguard the best interests of children.