Supreme Court of Appeal orders four-year-old boy returned to Switzerland after being held in South Africa without dad’s permission. A four-year-old boy will be returned to Switzerland after his mother unlawfully kept him in South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled. The decision overturns a Pretoria High Court ruling and highlights the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which treats the wrongful retention of a child across borders as a form of international abduction.
The child, born in Italy in May 2021, lived with his parents in Geneva for almost two years. His father, an Italian national who later obtained Swiss citizenship, covered all expenses for the child and the mother while the family was staying in the Alpine nation, including housing, travel, and childcare. The three judges also noted that the child, who cannot be named as he is a minor, was entitled to Swiss citizenship and its social benefits because his father secured citizenship.
In the ruling, the judges noted that the boy was enrolled in a Swiss crèche and registered with local authorities, cementingSwitzerland as his primary and habitual place of residence. The dispute arose after a family trip to South Africa in May 2022 for a wedding. After his mom contracted Covid-19, his father returned to Switzerland, expecting the mother and child to follow.
[paywall]
Instead, the mother delayed returning and eventually chose to stay in South Africa, citing the support of her local family. The father opposed her decision and sought the child’s return to Switzerland. The mother argued she had sole custody under Swiss law as an unmarried parent and that the child’s primary and habitual place of residence had never been established.
The Supreme Court rejected these claims. It found that the father had full parental responsibilities under Italian law, which continued to apply in Switzerland. His dad had exercised these rights prior to the child being retained in South Africa, and the mother’s decision to keep the child there was unilateral and unlawful, it found.
[/paywall]
