Federal Court has ruled Woman may not visit her ex-partner's daughter
In a sensational case, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is not entitled to visit her former partner's daughter. The woman's lawyers sharply criticize the ruling.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The Federal Court denies a woman visitation rights to her ex-partner's daughter because the relationship with the child is not close enough.
- The adoption of the daughter did not take place because of the separation.
- The ruling is criticized by lawyers as regressive for homosexual families.
In a case heard in public, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that a woman from Lausanne has no right to visit her ex-partner's daughter. This was reported by theTages-Anzeigernewspaper.
A female judge and four male judges discussed the case for around five hours. The majority of them came to the conclusion that the contact between the complainant and the now seven-year-old girl had not been close enough. In addition, the woman had not sufficiently substantiated her initial intention to be a mother figure in the child's life.
The woman, who has had no contact with the girl for five years, had argued that she was an important caregiver for the child. However, the court followed the arguments of the Vaud authorities, who had refused visitation rights.
Presentation differs greatly from each other
The two women met in 2013 and moved in together a year later. Although they did not officially register their partnership, they decided to start a family. With the help of sperm donations from Denmark, which were delivered to France, they circumvented the strict Swiss laws on reproduction, as the newspaper writes.
The complainant herself gave birth to a son in 2015, who was subsequently adopted by her partner. Three years later, the partner had a daughter, who should also have been adopted by the complainant. But this never happened. The relationship broke up before the complainant was able to adopt her partner's daughter.
The account of the last years of their relationship differs greatly between the two women. According to the complainant, the second child was also a joint project and she was present at the fertilization and birth. She would have called the now 7-year-old girl "maman".
But the current ex-partner sees things differently. She claims that the second child was her sole project and that the romantic relationship with her partner had already been over for two years. She denies that she was accompanied by her partner. She also claims that she practically looked after both children on her own. There could therefore be no question of a parental relationship between the complainant and her daughter.
"Retro decision"
The arguments of the ex-partner convinced the majority of the judges, who did not consider the ZGB article, which provides for visiting rights for non-biological caregivers in exceptional cases, to be applicable, reports the Tages-Anzeiger.
After the ruling was handed down, the complainant's lawyers, Marina Abbas and Anaïs Brodard, were critical. They described the ruling as a "retro decision" that creates uncertainty for children of homosexual couples.
They criticized the fact that the question of shared parenting was not raised for heterosexual couples.
