Portuguese Court Rejects Parents’ Religious Objection to Classes on Gender
On 9 April 2026, the Administrative and Tax Court of Braga dismissed an action brought by parents whose sons had been held back after refusing to attend mandatory Citizenship and Development classes. The family objected particularly to teaching on gender and sexuality, arguing that the State had disregarded their religious convictions and primary responsibility for their children’s moral education.
The Administrative and Tax Court of Braga reportedly dismissed the Mesquita Guimarães family’s challenge concerning mandatory “Citizenship and Development” classes on 9 April 2026. According to information provided to OIDAC Europe, the court found the action entirely unfounded and ordered the parents to pay costs.
The dispute began after the parents informed the Agrupamento de Escolas Camilo Castelo Branco (Camilo Castelo Branco School Group) that they would not authorise their sons to attend the subject. The available official judicial record shows that their objections concerned particularly the modules on “health and sexuality education” and “gender equality”. They argued that the course was not morally neutral, that some of its content conflicted with their religious convictions and that parents, rather than the State, hold the primary responsibility for their children’s moral education.
Because the students did not attend the classes, they exceeded the permitted number of unjustified absences. Their parents also refused the proposed recovery plans, as accepting them would have required the children to complete work connected with the same subject from which the family had requested their withdrawal. In June 2019, the relevant Conselhos de Turma (Class Councils) nevertheless allowed the students to progress after considering their excellent academic performance, responsible behaviour and positive participation in school life.
The school director annulled those decisions in June 2020. New Class Council meetings held on 30 July 2020 subsequently ordered the retention of both students, meaning that they would have to repeat their respective school years. After this, the parents began proceedings seeking provisional protection while the main legal challenge was considered. On 4 November 2021, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) rejected their appeal in the interim proceedings. That judgment did not decide the main religious-freedom claim, but concluded that the existence and scope of a parental right to conscientious objection in this context were legally uncertain and required fuller examination.
The 2021 court also stated that parents could explain their own convictions at home to counter ideas taught at school. This approach places the burden on families to correct teaching they consider incompatible with their beliefs after the State has required their children to receive it. For religious parents, the ability to discuss contested content later does not necessarily protect their prior right to guide the moral and religious education of their children or resolve the conflict created by compulsory participation.
The parents have continued publicly to defend their position. In a statement published on 28 July 2025, Artur Mesquita Guimarães argued that making the subject compulsory removes educational responsibility from parents and places schools in direct conflict with families that do not consent to the course. He did not oppose other families choosing the subject for their children, but maintained that participation should be voluntary. In a further statement of 30 July 2025, he warned that political control of educational content was weakening both family freedom and the relationship of trust between parents and schools.
Source: Plataforma Renovar, 28 July 2025, Plataforma Renovar, 30 July 2025, O Preço da Liberdade, 2 October 2025, Eu Compreendo, 13 October 2025, Diário de Notícias
Image: jacqueline macou from Pixabay