High Court Rejects Habeas Corpus Bid by 'Unconventional Parents' in Save Lily Case
SingTao · 4 SOURCESabout 1 hour ago2 MIN
Summary
A Hong Kong High Court on Wednesday rejected an application for habeas corpus filed by a couple seeking to reclaim custody of their young son Danny from Social Welfare Department care. Judge Au Yeung Kwai-yu ruled the application was "wrongful and inappropriate," finding that Danny is not arbitrarily detained under a valid 36-month protection order . The couple, known as the "unconventional parents" in the "Save Lily" case, argued that the Social Welfare Department and Po Leung Kuk were unlawfully restricting parental rights and blocking breastfeeding arrangements .
Key Points
- Parents Tsang Wai-bong and Kwan Pui-sin applied for habeas corpus after a protection order placed Danny (born via home birth) under Social Welfare Department supervision for 36 months
- Judge ruled the protection order is lawful and Danny's current care arrangement does not constitute arbitrary detention or torture under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Danny suffers from eczema; parents refused prescribed medication in favor of organic olive oil treatment, which doctors said worsened his condition
- Parents claim Po Leung Kuk feeds Danny before visitations, effectively weaning him off breast milk and severing the parent-child bond
- The court noted Danny has a deceased sibling and another sibling currently under care in another country, contributing to concerns about parental care capabilities
Why It Matters
The ruling establishes that habeas corpus is not an appropriate mechanism to challenge child protection orders, which must be contested through dedicated legal channels such as appeals or judicial review . This case highlights ongoing tensions between parental rights and child welfare interventions in Hong Kong, particularly regarding home birthing and vaccination choices, with the parents indicating they will not conceive future children in Hong Kong .
The ruling establishes that habeas corpus is not an appropriate mechanism to challenge child protection orders, which must be contested through dedicated legal channels such as appeals or judicial review . This case highlights ongoing tensions between parental rights and child welfare interventions in Hong Kong, particularly regarding home birthing and vaccination choices, with the parents indicating they will not conceive future children in Hong Kong .