The Department appealed the adoption ruling, and an identical one was previously accepted.

The Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family, and Social Policy has filed an appeal against a recent court ruling regarding the adoption of a child by a partner in a civil partnership, despite having previously accepted a nearly identical decision. This situation has sparked significant controversy and concern among advocacy groups and affected families, who argue that the government's actions contradict its earlier commitments to respect judicial decisions.

In this case, a woman seeks to adopt her partner’s child, who already lives within their household. Such scenarios have long been common in heterosexual families, particularly when one parent loses custody due to death or legal proceedings, allowing a new partner to establish full legal ties with the child. The Administrative Court in Zagreb recently ruled in favor of the couple, overturning the decisions made by the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family, and Social Policy and the Croatian Institute for Social Work, which had halted the adoption process.

The court emphasized that there was no legal basis for halting the procedure and that the petitioner must be allowed to participate in further assessments of the adoption's justification, guided by the principle of the child’s best interest. Only after such evaluations can a final decision on the adoption be made. This ruling comes just months after a nearly identical case where the Ministry did not file an appeal, and the court's decision became binding, with the minister publicly stating that the ministry would respect court rulings.

The group "Dugine obitelji" (Same-Sex Families) highlighted the significance of the court's repeated emphasis on continuing the process until the child's best interests are thoroughly assessed. They noted that in a previous ruling, the court went even further, pointing out the illogicality of allowing someone to enter the adoption system, undergo professional evaluations, and be registered as a potential adopter, only to later exclude them solely because they are in a civil partnership.

Ivana Svalina, a mother involved in the process, expressed frustration and exhaustion, noting that she had hoped this would finally allow her family to live without constant legal battles. Instead, she felt the message was clear: her family must prove what other families do not need to.

The group criticized the Ministry's contradictory behavior, pointing out that just a few months ago, a similar case saw the Ministry accept the court's decision without appealing. Now, however, the Ministry has chosen to challenge the ruling, raising questions about the criteria used to determine when the state will respect court decisions and when it will not.

Daniel Martinović, president of the "Dugine obitelji" group, emphasized the concern over the Ministry appealing a decision that explicitly states the process should continue due to the child’s best interests. He criticized the political rhetoric surrounding the issue, suggesting that some politicians talk about children's welfare until a real child from a same-sex family appears, at which point discussions shift to who the parents are rather than focusing on the child's well-being. He argued that this approach is not protective of children but rather uses them for political gain and cheap political points based on homophobia.

The group also pointed out that this is not the first time courts have had to correct institutional practices concerning the rights of same-sex families. Similar patterns have been observed in cases involving foster care, access to adoption evaluations, and recognition of parental rights. They stressed that these are not abstract legal debates but involve real families and actual children living together.

The group expects the High Administrative Court to confirm what Croatian courts have repeatedly established—that laws cannot be interpreted in ways that deny rights to same-sex families. They believe the current situation highlights the ongoing struggle for equality and the need for consistent application of legal principles.