CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780 (E) 140725 150725

Committee on the Rights of the Child

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a

communications procedure, concerning communication

No. 150/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

D.P. (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

K.P.

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of communication:

18 October 2020 (initial submission)

Date of adoption of decision:

26 May 2025

Subject matter:

Non-execution of rulings on parental contact

with a child living in another country; request for

parental authority

Procedural issues:

Exhaustion of local remedies; abuse of the right

to submit a communication; communication

manifestly ill-founded

Substantive issues:

Separation of children from parents; right to

maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional

circumstances, personal relations and direct

contact with both parents; joint responsibility of

both parents for the upbringing and development

of the child; protection of children from illicit

use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances

Articles of the Convention:

5, 9 (3), 10 (2), 18 (1) and 33

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

7 (c), (e) and (f)

1.1

The author of the communication is D.P., a national of the United States of America

born on 23 June 1979. He claims that his daughter, K.P., a national of Switzerland and the

United States born on 16 August 2016, is a victim of violations by the State Party of her

* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-ninth session (12–30 May 2025).

** The following members of the Committee took part in the examination of the communication:

Suzanne Aho, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria

Correa, Timothy Ekesa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Mariana Ianachevici, Sophie Kiladze, Cephas Lumina,

Faith Marshall-Harris, Benyam Dawit Mezmur, Aïssatou Alassane Sidikou, Zeinebou Taleb Moussa

and Benoit Van Keirsbilck.

Pursuant to rule 8 (1) (a) of the Committee’s rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the

Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, Committee member Philip

Jaffé did not participate in the consideration of the communication.

United Nations

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

Convention on the

Rights of the Child

Distr.: General

24 June 2025

English

Original: French

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

2

GE.25-08780

rights under articles 5, 9 (3), 10 (2), 18 (1) and 33 of the Convention. The author is not

represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on

24 July 2017.

1.2

The author asked the Committee for interim measures on two occasions, requesting

access to K.P. and protection for her while the communication was being examined by the

Committee. On 22 June 2021 and 29 December 2022, in accordance with article 6 of the

Optional Protocol, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the

Committee, decided not to submit a request for interim measures to the State Party.

Factual background

2.1

The author married L.J. in 2014, and K.P. was born to them in August 2016. In a

decision dated 20 March 2018 on measures for protection of the marital union, the spouses

were granted permission to live separately, the author having moved to the United States.

Custody of K.P. was granted to her mother, with the author granted visitation rights. The

agreement provided that, until K.P.’s third birthday, contact would take the form of a

30-minute Internet call twice per week and in-person visits in Switzerland for two weeks per

year, initially in the presence of a third party. A contact supervision order was also issued. In

a decision issued on 2 August 2018, the justice of the peace for the Sarine District assigned

a Children’s Services employee to supervise the contact. On 17 August 2018, the justice of

the peace for the Sarine District issued an emergency order setting out the terms of the

father’s visitation rights for the period from 17 to 25 August 2018, under which he was

prohibited from removing his daughter from Switzerland and the child’s identity documents

were to be entrusted to Children’s Services.

2.2

On 13 September 2018, L.J. filed for a divorce. At a hearing on 14 November 2018,

the parties reached an agreement on the terms of the author’s visitation rights. In a decision

dated 20 December 2018, a child welfare advocate was appointed to represent K.P. in the

divorce proceedings.

2.3

In a decision dated 14 May 2019, the Sarine District Civil Court suspended the father’s

visitation rights with immediate effect. At a hearing before the Court on 15 May 2019, the

parties reached a new agreement on the author’s visitation rights. In a temporary order dated

16 May 2019, the Court granted the father visitation rights during the vacation between 13

and 25 May, setting out the details and amending the general agreement on visitation.

2.4

In a letter dated 15 July 2019, L.J. requested the suspension of visitation rights,

asserting that in-person contact between her daughter and the author should take place only

in Switzerland. In a decision dated 29 July 2019, the Court rejected the request.

2.5

In a decision dated 12 December 2019, the Sarine District Civil Court awarded L.J.

exclusive parental authority and custody in respect of K.P. and adjusted the author’s visitation

rights. It also ordered the author to make monthly maintenance payments in respect of his

daughter. With regard to visitation rights, the decision provided that contact would take place

via Internet calls every four to six weeks until K.P.’s fourth birthday, every week once she

reached that age and twice per week from 1 January 2021. In-person contact was set at two

one-week visits in 2020, one week every three months from 1 January 2021 until K.P.’s sixth

birthday, and half of the school vacations from her tenth birthday onwards. On 31 January

2020, the author appealed the decision of 12 December 2019. On 13 March 2020, K.P.’s

welfare advocate recommended that the decision should be upheld and the appeal dismissed.

2.6

Following the author’s request for emergency measures, the justice of the peace for

the Sarine District issued a decision on 11 February 2020 setting out the terms of the author’s

in-person visit from 12 to 19 February 2020 and prohibiting him from removing his daughter

from Switzerland. In a decision dated 19 February 2020, the justice of the peace also set out

the terms of an in-person visit from 19 to 26 February 2020.

2.7

On 3 April 2020, a summary judgment was issued against L.J. for insults, defamation,

failure to comply with a decision of the authorities, unlawful appropriation, handling stolen

goods and offences under the Federal Act on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances. She

was sentenced to 40 day-fines, suspended for two years, the amount of the day-fine being set

at 20 Swiss francs, and a fine of 300 Swiss francs.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

3

2.8

In a decision dated 1 September 2020, the Fribourg Cantonal Court partially admitted

the author’s appeal against the decision of the Sarine District Civil Court. With regard to

visitation rights, the terms of contact via Internet calls were not changed. According to a

schedule drawn up by the welfare advocate tasked with monitoring the contact supervision

order, visitation rights would be exercised during two two-week visits per year until August

2021 and, subsequently, during half of the summer and Christmas school vacations. The visits

would initially be in Switzerland but could take place in other countries from August 2029.

The Cantonal Court also modified the maintenance contributions and ordered L.J. to take the

necessary steps to have K.P.’s status as a national of the United States recognized.

2.9

On 9 October 2020, the author appealed this decision before the Federal Supreme

Court. On 24 June 2021, he sent the Federal Supreme Court a formal notice ordering the

Swiss authorities, the respondent and the respondent’s counsel to cease or desist from

committing any unlawful activities in connection with his relationship with K.P. In an order

dated 14 October 2021, the Federal Supreme Court found the appeal inadmissible.

2.10

In April 2020, L.J. decided to move from Fribourg to Vevey, in the Canton of Vaud.

In July 2020, responsibility for monitoring the contact supervision order was transferred to

the justice of the peace for the Riviera-Pays-d’Enhaut District.

2.11

On 12 October 2020, the justice of the peace held a hearing attended by L.J. and her

counsel, the author’s counsel and the child welfare advocate. On 22 October 2020, L.J.

requested the suspension of the author’s visitation rights during his visit to Switzerland. On

18 November 2020, the author requested the adoption of temporary and emergency measures

ordering L.J., under threat of sanctions, to respect the remote visitation arrangements set out

in the divorce decree. In a decision dated 20 November 2020, the justice of the peace rejected

both requests.

2.12

On 11 December 2020, the author filed a new request for enforcement of the remote

visitation arrangements set out in the divorce decree. In an emergency order dated

16 December 2020, the justice of the peace dismissed the request and ordered that contact

between K.P. and the author via Internet calls should temporarily be supervised at the office

of the child welfare advocate or another location selected by her.

2.13

On 19 January 2021, L.J. requested temporary and emergency measures suspending

contact between the author and K.P. In an emergency order, the justice of the peace

temporarily suspended visitation rights and summoned the parents and the welfare advocate

to a hearing. On the same day, an assessment of the arrangements for contact between the

author and K.P. was begun.

2.14

On 27 January 2021, the author’s counsel informed the judge that the author objected

to the hearing and would not participate or be represented. He requested that parental

authority and custody be temporarily removed from L.J., that the right to determine the

child’s place of residence be entrusted to the General Directorate for Children and Young

People, with a view to determining custody of the child, and that the Directorate be

responsible for ensuring that custody was properly exercised and encouraging a positive

relationship between father and daughter, with a view to the child’s return to her father. On

the merits, the author asked that parental authority be awarded jointly to both parents and that

he be granted custody. In a letter dated 29 January 2021, the justice of the peace informed

the author’s counsel that the author’s requests in respect of parental authority and custody

fell within the jurisdiction of the civil courts rather than that of the child protection authorities.

The hearing on 8 February 2021 was attended by L.J., her counsel and the child welfare

advocate. The author and his counsel did not attend. In a temporary order dated 8 February

2021, the justice of the peace decided to continue the assessment arrangements concerning

visitation rights and temporarily suspend remote visitation rights. It was also decided that the

arrangements for in-person visits would be reviewed ex officio at such time as the father

communicated his intention to travel to Switzerland to exercise his visitation rights.

Complaint

3.1

The author claims that the State Party has violated K.P.’s rights under articles 5, 9 (3),

10 (2), 18 (1) and 33 of the Convention.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

4

GE.25-08780

3.2

The author states that between 2018 and 2020, he was unable to see his daughter under

the terms ordered by the courts. He indicates that he has not been able to see K.P. twice a

week in video calls since November 2020. Despite several letters sent to the justice of the

peace, no steps were taken to facilitate contact via Internet calls or to enable him to have

access to his daughter’s medical and school records and proof of her current place of

residence.

3.3

The author points out that K.P.’s mother was convicted of offences including

possession and trafficking of narcotics and failure to comply with court orders granting him

access to his daughter. Despite this, she was granted parental authority in respect of the child.

The author believes that L.J. is endangering K.P.’s life and emotional, moral, physical and

psychological development and that the State Party’s courts have done nothing to protect her.

The author asserts that he wants exclusive parental authority in respect of his daughter to

protect her from her mother.

State Party’s observations on admissibility

4.1

In its observations on admissibility, dated 26 July 2021, the State Party argues that the

communication should be declared inadmissible under article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol.

4.2

The State Party notes that in an order dated 1 September 2020, the Fribourg Cantonal

Court ruled on the appeal lodged on 31 January 2020 challenging the decision issued by the

Sarine District Civil Court on 12 December 2019. The subject of the order, which set the

author against L.J., concerned the divorce decree, as well as visitation rights and maintenance

contributions in respect of K.P.

4.3

The State Party maintains that, contrary to the author’s claims, an ordinary appeal

procedure was available to him to challenge the order issued by the Fribourg Cantonal Court

on 1 September 2020. The information on the last page of the order indicates that a civil

appeal can be lodged against it before the Federal Supreme Court within 30 days from the

date of notification. Standing and other conditions for lodging appeals are set out in

articles 72 to 77 and 90 et seq. of the Federal Supreme Court Act of 17 June 2005.

4.4

The State Party also argues that the author was fully aware of this possibility, since

his lawyer lodged a civil appeal before the Federal Supreme Court on his behalf, in the form

of a 24-page brief dated 9 October 2020. The civil appeal is still pending before the Federal

Supreme Court, which is currently examining the case. The State Party therefore maintains

that the Swiss authorities, and in particular the Federal Supreme Court, have not yet been

able to examine the claims the author has raised before the Committee with regard to the

provisions of the Convention. They were thus denied the opportunity, if applicable, to remedy

possible violations of the Convention before the Committee itself was seized of the matter,

which is contrary to the purpose of the rule on the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.

4.5

In addition, the State Party points out that the author’s allegations against the justice

of the peace for the Riviera-Pays-d’Enhaut District concern a period and events subsequent

to the order issued by the Fribourg Cantonal Court on 1 September 2020. No legal decisions

have been handed down in connection with these events by the Vaud Cantonal Court or by

the Federal Supreme Court. In this regard too, it appears that the Swiss authorities were

denied the opportunity, if applicable, to remedy possible violations of the Convention before

the Committee itself was seized of the matter, which is contrary to the purpose of the rule on

the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility

5.1

In comments dated 23 May 2022, the author argues that the appeal procedure available

before the Federal Supreme Court does not allow for the introduction of new allegations,

facts, evidence or requests and takes into consideration only the decisions and documents

presented to the Cantonal Court, meaning that the information on his ex-wife’s

drug-trafficking offences was inadmissible. The author maintains that all domestic remedies

were exhausted by December 2019, when he lodged his appeal before the Fribourg Cantonal

Court, given that no new elements can be introduced before the Federal Supreme Court.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

5

5.2

The author refers to the decision of 30 July 2021, in which the division of the Vaud

Cantonal Court responsible for contact supervision dismissed his appeal against the

temporary order issued on 8 February 2021 by the justice of the peace for the Riviera-Pays-

d’Enhaut District. The justice of the peace had temporarily suspended the remote visitation

rights set out in the divorce decree of 12 December 2019 and determined that the

arrangements for in-person visits would be reviewed ex officio at such time as the father

communicated his intention to travel to Switzerland. In its decision, the Court noted that the

justice of the peace had considered that the author continued to adopt a confrontational

attitude in respect of his ex-wife and the child welfare advocate and that, given the child’s

young age and the fact that the author continued to post images of his daughter on social

networks, including stills taken during Internet calls, his remote visitation rights should be

suspended. It also noted that the child welfare advocate was not available for video calls on

the days specified by the Fribourg authorities, namely Thursdays and Sundays, and that the

author had not behaved appropriately during the first Internet call, prompting the welfare

advocate to end the session. The Court also noted the many difficulties encountered in

organizing travel to Switzerland. The Court concluded the following:

In the interests of the child, her relationship with her father requires very careful

management to ensure, on the one hand, a gradual resumption of contact and to avoid,

on the other, any risk of abduction (the claimant having created a “bring my babies

home” website) and to prevent contact between the parents. In addition, the child and

her father do not speak the same language. The claimant appears unaware of the

consequences of his actions and rejects all solutions proposed to him, in apparent

disregard of K.P.’s needs. Pending the intervention of Espace Contact, if necessary

via video calls this summer, remote meetings between the child and her father without

an intermediary must be suspended as a necessary and proportionate measure to

protect K.P.

5.3

The author maintains that his daughter continues to be neglected by her mother and

the Swiss authorities and that she has not yet been seen by a psychologist, as requested by

him and as ordered by a court in April 2021. He maintains that the State Party’s authorities

are denying his daughter the right to be heard, despite her being capable of expressing herself

clearly at her age.

5.4

The author points out that the 2018 decision ordering regular personal contact between

him and his daughter and other subsequent decisions in this regard have not been enforced.

5.5

The author refers to his many unsuccessful attempts to exercise his visitation rights.

He explains that he saw his daughter via video call, with assistance from the Swiss authorities

in the Canton of Vaud in the form of the involvement of a child welfare advocate and Espace

Contact, as ordered by the court, for only 1.5 hours between February 2020 and April 2022

and that on his last visit to Switzerland in August 2021, he discovered that she did not live at

the address he had been given and he was able to track her down only with the help of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. On that occasion, he was not permitted to see his daughter

owing to the protection measures requested by his ex-wife. When he tried to contact the

authorities to organize a visit in June 2022, a member of Espace Contact told him not to travel

to Switzerland. Saying he was tired of the “continuing garbage from the courts in the Canton

of Vaud over the last two and a half years”, the author used insulting terms, telling them to

do their job and pointing out that his daughter was “not the property of Switzerland”. The

author claims that, since 2018, he has complied with the terms of the decision ordering him

to provide two months’ notice and that in Switzerland he has faced violence, insubordination,

intimidation, threats, harassment, racism, prejudice, discrimination, bias and false

accusations. He adds that K.P. is a victim of terrorism perpetrated by her mother and assisted

by the State and that for years she has continually been subjected to emotional and

psychological abuse and physical neglect in a drug den. He maintains that to spend time with

K.P., he has endured torment from start to finish during each visit.

Author’s additional comments

6.1

In his comments dated 31 May, 13 June, 5 August and 4 and 8 September 2022, the

author argues that the judge revoked his visitation rights in June 2022 at the mother’s request.

Once again, he declares that he is able to show “how Switzerland violates children’s rights

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

6

GE.25-08780

and causes permanent harm to father and daughter by preventing contact and the exercise of

visitation rights”. He asks that the urgency of the case be taken into account, as his daughter

is living in a climate of abuse and neglect, with the State authorities “assisting the custodial

parent by ordering destructive measures in favourable and illegal decisions”.

6.2

The author adds that K.P.’s grandmother confirmed that her daughter has no

relationship with her Swiss family and maintains contact only with her grandfather in Serbia,

where she received assistance with international drug trafficking activities and where she has

taken K.P. on vacation. He states that K.P. “continues to be estranged from most of her family

and lives in a drug-filled environment” despite the requests he has previously directed to the

courts and the General Directorate for Children and Young People and the emails he has sent

to K.P.’s child welfare advocate.

State Party’s additional observations on admissibility

7.1

In its additional observations on admissibility, dated 6 November 2022, the State Party

reiterates that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 7 (e) of the

Optional Protocol.

7.2

The State Party asserts that in a ruling dated 14 October 2021, the Federal Supreme

Court dismissed the author’s appeal of 9 October 2020 against the order issued by the

Fribourg Cantonal Court on 1 September 2020 granting parental authority and setting out

visitation rights.

7.3

With regard to the proceedings brought before the justice of the peace for the Riviera-

Pays-d’Enhaut District, the State Party points out that one of them concerned the procedure

for transferring to the relevant jurisdiction the responsibility for monitoring the contact

supervision order issued on 2 August 2018 by the justice of the peace for the Sarine District.

On 10 July 2020, the justice of the peace for the Riviera-Pays-d’Enhaut District accepted the

transfer of the supervision order and has been monitoring it ever since. The second procedure

relates to an assessment of the arrangements concerning the author’s visitation rights. A

number of decisions have been handed down in this context, the most recent of which, dated

8 June 2022, is a temporary order issued by the justice of the peace, who decided to continue

the assessment and temporarily suspend visitation rights. The author’s appeal against this

order is currently pending before the Vaud Cantonal Court. Consequently, the State Party

fully maintains its conclusions as expressed in its observations of 26 July 2021 and invites

the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic

remedies.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

8.1

In its observations dated 15 June 2023, the State Party asserts that the author lodged

an appeal before the division of the Vaud Cantonal Court responsible for contact supervision

in which he challenges the temporary measures ordered on 8 February 2021 by the justice of

the peace. In a decision dated 1 April 2021, the division rejected his request to suspend the

measures. On 30 July 2021, it rejected the appeal.

8.2

On 10 May 2021, a social worker from the General Directorate for Children and

Young People was appointed as joint advocate to assist the existing child welfare advocate

in planning, organizing and monitoring the exercise of visitation rights. The justice of the

peace held another hearing on 31 January 2022, which was attended by L.J., her counsel, the

author’s ex officio counsel and the joint advocates. In a temporary order dated the same day,

the justice decided to continue the assessment of the arrangements for the author’s visitation

rights. Pursuant to the order, remote contact between the author and his daughter would

temporarily be conducted through the specialized service Espace Contact, in accordance with

its terms and conditions and in line with the schedule drawn up by the joint child welfare

advocates responsible for monitoring the contact supervision order. The arrangements for the

exercise of visitation rights would be re-examined at a later date.

8.3

On 18 May 2022, the justice of the peace issued an emergency order temporarily

suspending all the author’s visitation rights, both remote and in-person, set a deadline of

2 June 2022 for the author to set out in writing his position regarding the temporary

suspension of his visitation rights and for the submission of reports by Espace Contact and

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

7

the General Directorate for Children and Young People and ruled that on that date, a

temporary order would be issued regarding the suspension.

8.4

In a temporary order dated 8 June 2022, the justice of the peace decided to continue

the assessment of the arrangements concerning the author’s visitation rights and temporarily

suspend all the author’s visitation rights, both online and in-person, and stated that, in the

absence of any new elements, the advisability of continuing or terminating the assessment of

the arrangements would be examined ex officio within six months. On 1 July 2022, the author

contested this order before the division responsible for contact supervision, which rejected

his appeal in a ruling dated 1 November 2022. In a writ dated 12 December 2022, the author

appealed this ruling before the division and the Federal Supreme Court. His appeal was

declared inadmissible by the Federal Supreme Court in a ruling dated 28 February 2023 and

by the division responsible for contact supervision on 30 March 2023.

8.5

The State Party points out that, at the time the communication was submitted,

domestic remedies had clearly not been exhausted in respect of all relevant proceedings. In

particular, it considers that domestic remedies must have been exhausted by the time the

communication is submitted. With regard to the proceedings conducted in the Canton of

Vaud, it also points out that the author has lodged only one appeal before the Federal Supreme

Court, in a writ dated 12 December 2022. As can be seen from the decision of the Federal

Supreme Court, the appeal clearly did not meet the conditions set out in article 106 of the

Federal Supreme Court Act. Furthermore, the appeal was submitted by email without an

electronic signature, and, in any case, appeared to have arrived after the deadline. The

author’s appeal was therefore declared inadmissible under the simplified procedure.

8.6

The State Party also argues that the communication is inadmissible because the author

has failed to justify acting on behalf of K.P. without her consent within the meaning of

article 5 of the Optional Protocol. The communication should therefore be considered an

abuse of the right to submit a communication or, at the very least, incompatible with the

provisions of the Optional Protocol and declared inadmissible pursuant to article 7 (c) of the

Optional Protocol. It does not appear from the proceedings that K.P. was aware of the case

before the Committee and that she consented to the author acting on her behalf. As he does

not have parental authority, the author is not K.P.’s legal representative and is therefore not

authorized under domestic law to act on her behalf. In his communication, the author also

expresses a number of criticisms of L.J. His written submissions convey a strong sense of the

conflict between him and L.J. and reflect his own point of view more than that of K.P., whose

position on the conflict between her parents is unknown.

8.7

With regard to the direct applicability of the provisions invoked by the author, the

State Party points out that the guarantees set out in articles 5, 9 (3) and 10 (2) of the

Convention overlap with aspects of the right to respect for private and family life, including

as enshrined in article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). It therefore does not

contest the direct applicability of these provisions in the present case.

8.8

In its Dispatch on the accession of Switzerland to the Convention, 1 the Federal

Council took the view that article 18 (1) of the Convention was more applicable to third

parties than to States Parties. It considered that, insofar as international treaties are formally

binding only on States, it fell to legislators to enshrine them in national law. This assessment

is supported by the wording of the provision, which does not guarantee the child a right.

8.9

Similarly, the wording of article 33 of the Convention makes it clear that this provision

calls on States Parties to take measures to protect children from the illicit use of drugs,

without guaranteeing the child a justiciable right in this context.

8.10

In the State Party’s view, articles 18 (1) and 33 of the Convention are therefore not

directly applicable, and complaints relating to them should be declared inadmissible pursuant

to article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

1 Switzerland, Federal Council, Dispatch on accession of Switzerland to the 1989 Convention on the

Rights of the Child, 29 June 1994, Official Gazette, FF 1994 V 1.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

8

GE.25-08780

8.11

The State Party also states that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of

insufficient substantiation under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. The author has limited

himself to presenting the facts in a particularly brief and incomplete manner and citing the

provisions of the Convention that he wishes to invoke. His account does not specify which

domestic decisions are being challenged or on what grounds, and it is therefore not possible

to discern the aim of the communication. Neither does it include any discussion of the reasons

for the decisions taken by the domestic authorities, nor does it specify in any way why these

decisions are not compatible with the provisions invoked.

8.12

On the merits, the State Party considers that there has been no violation of the

Convention in the proceedings in question. It is clear from the author’s written submissions

that he objects to the fact that L.J. was granted parental authority in respect of K.P. and that

he has complaints about the arrangements for his visitation rights.

8.13

With regard to parental authority, the State Party indicates that under Swiss law, joint

parental authority is the norm irrespective of the parents’ civil status. This principle is

deviated from only in exceptional cases where it appears that the attribution of exclusive

parental authority to one of the parents is necessary for the child’s welfare. In this case, in a

decision dated 12 December 2019, the Sarine District Civil Court noted that, despite its

previous orders, tensions between the author and L.J. persisted. The Court also noted that

there was a risk that K.P. might be abducted by the author, who had created a website called

“Bring my babies home” to raise money to bring his daughter and the family pets to the

United States. In an order dated 1 September 2020, the Cantonal Court also noted that K.P.’s

parents had considerable difficulty in communicating calmly about their daughter and that

they repeatedly criticized each other. The relationship seemed so difficult that it might have

negative repercussions on their daughter, including in the context of visitation rights and the

personal relationship between the child and her father, the authorities having regularly been

called upon to intervene in the latter aspect. The parental conflict was also evident in the way

the parties communicated with each other, with the author at times even using foul language

towards L.J. The assessment of the cantonal courts was upheld by the Federal Supreme Court.

The domestic authorities were unanimous in their view that this was one of the rare situations

covered by domestic law in which joint parental authority was not appropriate insofar as

cooperation between the parents was impossible and was clearly unlikely to improve and in

which the judicial authorities repeatedly had to intervene to ensure that decisions could be

taken that were, in principle, within the parents’ sphere of competence.

8.14

The State Party observes that the author argues in substance that, because of L.J.’s

criminal convictions, it would be contrary to K.P.’s best interests to remain with her.

However, that is not the case. In fact, the offences in question were not very serious and had

no impact on L.J.’s ability to raise K.P. and meet her needs. Moreover, the social assessment

conducted following the parents’ separation found that K.P. was very well looked after by

her mother.

8.15

With regard to the proceedings in the Canton of Fribourg concerning contact via

Internet calls, it is clear from the file that initially it did not go well. According to the

summary judgment issued on 3 April 2020, L.J. did not comply with the decisions issued by

the justice of the peace on 17 and 21 August 2018, and telephone contact was not possible.

At the hearing on 18 June 2019 before the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of

Fribourg, L.J. asserted in this regard that contact via Internet calls had taken place for a while

and that she had begun to object to them following an occasion when the author, upon hearing

a male voice in her apartment, reportedly swore and used misogynistic language while K.P.

was on the call. After that, L.J. reportedly gave the author several more opportunities to

engage in contact via Internet calls, but he repeatedly behaved inappropriately, uttering

insults and threats and saying that he would kill the man who was with L.J. and destroy her

life. After several interruptions, she decided to stop allowing calls.

8.16

The State Party asserts that according to a Children’s Services report dated 31 October

2018, even when calls did take place, they did not go well. The author complained that the

calls did not last the allotted 30 minutes. The Service reminded him that K.P. was just 2 years

old at the time and that it was inappropriate to force a child of that age to remain in front of

a screen for a set amount of time.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

9

8.17

In order to avoid contact between the author and L.J., and as K.P. was too young to

be left alone in front of the computer, it was necessary to involve the welfare advocate tasked

with monitoring the contact supervision order. On 14 November 2018, at a meeting before

the Sarine District Civil Court, the parties reached an agreement regarding temporary

measures, including Internet calls “ideally for 30 minutes twice per week”, to take place in

the presence of the welfare advocate or a representative from Children’s Services.

8.18

The State Party indicates that owing to her professional commitments, the welfare

advocate was able to attend calls only every four to six weeks. At the time, there was no

alternative to the welfare advocate’s attendance, as the Point Rencontre association did not

have the necessary infrastructure.

8.19

With regard to the duration of the Internet calls, the advocate described the call on

15 May 2019 in the following terms:

Generally speaking, calls have so far lasted 30 minutes. After 10 minutes, [K.P.]

needed to move around and wanted to leave the room and I had to intervene to make

sure she stayed. [K.P.] interacted a lot with me, showing me things, playing with me

and talking to me. She also interacted with her father, but after a few minutes she

stopped looking at the screen and showed him lots of things instead. When she showed

me something, I asked her to show her father. When I saw that [K.P.] was unsettled

and wanted to leave, I translated the things her father was saying to her to keep her

calm. She does not speak English and her father does not speak to her in French. For

future contact, having a set duration for Skype calls is not ideal.

8.20

In its decision of 12 December 2019, the Sarine District Civil Court therefore decided

that until K.P.’s fourth birthday, Internet calls would take place every four to six weeks, on

the basis of the schedule of the welfare advocate or a representative of the Children’s Services,

in the presence of one of those persons and in a location to be defined by them. The duration

of the call would be dependent on how long the child could remain alone in front of the screen

without the involvement of someone else. From K.P.’s fourth birthday until 31 December

2020, calls would take place on a weekly basis, and from 1 January 2021 they would take

place twice a week.

8.21

With regard to in-person visits, the State Party asserts that the first one took place in

August 2018 and there was another in May 2019. For each visit, the welfare advocate drew

up a schedule and at the end of the week drafted a report on how the visit had gone. After the

author’s visit in August 2018, Children’s Services felt that it should be more involved in

visiting arrangements. For the visit in May 2019, measures were put in place and, overall, it

went well. The report mentions that, in general, during the inspection of the apartment, the

author was not at all cooperative, insulted the staff and was not completely honest.

8.22

A third visit took place in February 2020. According to the file, the first meeting

between father and child, on 12 February 2020, went badly. K.P. refused to have contact with

her father, who was insistent with her and did not particularly take her needs into account.

The meetings on 13 and 14 February 2020 went well. At the weekend, the author was

assaulted by L.J.’s former partner and was unable to participate in the meeting. On

17 February 2020, K.P. was distressed. She clung to the assistants, cried profusely, refused

to go with her father and ran away from him. The welfare advocate had to intervene to calm

K.P. down and ensure she could leave with her father. According to Children’s Services, the

author was unable to accompany K.P. during the handover or calm her down when she was

in distress. On 18 February 2020, the meeting did not go ahead because of the author’s

agitated, angry and impatient attitude and K.P.’s refusal to leave her mother. In a decision

dated 19 February 2020, the justice of the peace for the Sarine District issued a temporary

order concerning visits between 19 and 26 February 2020, namely one hour per day on 19

and 20 February and then an additional hour each day up to a total maximum of six hours per

day. The meetings would take place by appointment at the premises of the Children’s

Services in Fribourg, although for Saturday and Sunday the parents would have to come to

an agreement, through their lawyers if necessary.

8.23

With regard to the proceedings in the Canton of Vaud and remote visits, the State

Party maintains that the decision of the Sarine District Civil Court provided that, from K.P.’s

fourth birthday on 16 August 2020, it would be the parents’ responsibility to make the

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

10

GE.25-08780

arrangements. The justice of the peace, to whom responsibility for monitoring the contact

supervision order was transferred in July 2020, quickly realized that the parents were unable

to agree and blamed each other for it. In short, the author claimed that L.J. did not answer his

calls or put the child in front of the screen, while L.J. accused the author of systematically

insulting and attacking her during the calls, as well as recording them and sharing them on

the Internet. Given the situation, the welfare advocate was asked to arrange for calls to take

place at her office so that contact could be resumed quickly. In September 2020, the author

undertook, in writing, to share images from calls with his daughter only with family and

friends and not to publish them on publicly accessible websites, including his private channel.

A first video call was organized at the welfare advocate’s office on 7 October 2020. The

welfare advocate reported that she had to intervene on this occasion to ensure that the author

behaved appropriately with K.P. and did not talk to her about her mother during the call. The

author then became angry, which frightened the child, and the advocate ended the call. At a

hearing on 12 October 2020, the advocate expressed her willingness to continue organizing

Internet calls. However, the author did not respect his commitment not to share images of his

daughter outside his private circle. He recorded the 7 October 2020 call and uploaded it to

his publicly accessibly social media account alongside other older recordings in which the

child’s mother can be seen. In an emergency order issued on 20 January 2021, visitation

rights were temporarily suspended. In a temporary order dated 8 February 2021, the justice

of the peace considered, among other things, that the author’s having shared the recordings

of the calls clearly infringed K.P.’s right to privacy in respect of her image, which is a

personal right of the individual concerned. The justice of the peace noted that the recordings

had been shared without the consent of L.J., who is the child’s sole legal representative and

whose consent was therefore required for the use of her image. The sharing of the recordings

placed the child in danger since third parties might use them for various purposes and in a

manner prejudicial to her interests. The justice of the peace recalled that in matters of

attribution of parental rights, the well-being of the child was the fundamental consideration,

noted that the author appeared to maintain a confrontational attitude toward both the child’s

mother and the welfare advocate and reiterated that in the circumstances, it was important to

protect the child’s interests, in particular her right to privacy in respect of her image. Given

K.P.’s age, visits necessarily required the involvement of an adult, who was therefore also

exposed to the risk of his or her image being shared on social networks, as had happened in

the case of the welfare advocate and the child’s mother. In this context, the justice of the

peace considered that it was impossible for remote contact to continue in the form of video

calls. It was not possible to replace them with telephone calls, however, given that father and

daughter did not speak the same language. As it did not appear possible for remote contact

to continue, the justice of the peace temporarily suspended it.

8.24

The State Party states that in early 2022, following discussions with Espace Contact

and in order to work towards resuming contact between father and daughter, the author was

offered three video calls, to be preceded by a preliminary interview with the relevant officials.

Through his counsel, the author agreed to the terms and conditions set out by Espace Contact.

Reminding the author of his duty to respect his commitments, the justice of the peace, in a

temporary order dated 31 January 2022, stipulated, among other things, that remote contact

would temporarily be mediated by Espace Contact, in accordance with the association’s

terms and conditions and according to the schedule drawn up by the joint child welfare

advocates responsible for monitoring the contact supervision order.

8.25

The final report released by Espace Contact on 13 May 2022 shows that a first video

call took place between K.P. and the author on 4 April 2022, in the presence of two assistants.

Although the author was very happy to see his daughter, he did not ask her many questions

and remained focused on himself. K.P. did not say much. She spoke at one point to tell her

father that she was sad that she had been separated from her dog. The author showed her the

dog, which upset her. He also made some complaints, which the assistants did not translate

for K.P. In the days that followed, the author again sent several emails to numerous recipients.

These emails were antagonistic, inappropriate, threatening and insulting. On 27 April 2022,

the author telephoned Espace Contact and reiterated his complaints to the assistant who took

the call. It was impossible to have a conversation with him, as he was aggressive and

dishonest and refused to listen. The assistant ended the conversation after the author insulted

her and used abusive language. On 9 May 2022, an attempt was made at mediation, with the

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

11

involvement of the two Espace Contact assistants and the welfare advocate, with the aim of

obtaining a commitment from the author to refrain from speaking to them in that way. It was

once again impossible to have a conversation with the author, who continued to behave in an

aggressive and vindictive manner. The interaction ended after he used abusive language and

accused the staff of failing to do their job properly.

8.26

In a letter dated 29 April 2022, the welfare advocate informed the justice of the peace

that the remote contact between K.P. and the author had been suspended due to the author’s

rude and insulting remarks towards the Espace Contact staff. On 13 May 2022, Espace

Contact drew up a final report, in which it concluded the following: Despite numerous

attempts over the course of a year, Espace Contact has not succeeded in creating the necessary

conditions for [K.P.] to resume safe contact with her father. Our involvement was

systematically undermined by [the author’s] unstable, confrontational and inappropriate

behaviour and his inability to respect the format and the people involved. In this context, we

do not think it possible for remote contact to continue. On 18 May 2022, the justice of the

peace issued an emergency order temporarily suspending all the author’s visitation rights.

8.27

With regard to in-person visits, the author initially announced that he would travel to

Switzerland in May 2021, before postponing his trip until August 2021. On 29 April 2021,

the justice of the peace held an investigative hearing on the subject of visitation rights and

the exercise thereof. One of the welfare advocates appointed for this purpose set up visits

mediated by Espace Contact, the details of which were communicated to the author in July

2021. The visits were subject to the condition that the author refrain from criticizing L.J. in

the presence of K.P., and any video or audio recording was forbidden. As the author rejected

these conditions, the mediated visits could not take place in August 2021. During his time in

Switzerland, however, the author made several unannounced visits to L.J.’s home, despite an

order issued by the President of the East Vaud District Court banning him from approaching

her. The police had to intervene, which left K.P. very unsettled.

8.28

The author then announced that he would visit in February 2022 and then in the

summer of 2022. He was offered three dates for mediated visits, two in person and one via

video call, on the condition that he committed to respecting the terms that had previously

been set out. Through his new counsel, the author committed to complying with the rules and

conditions for the visits. In its final report dated 13 May 2022, Espace Contact stated that it

did not appear feasible to continue arranging visits. The welfare advocate noted that the

General Directorate for Children and Young People had no other structure that could offer

the necessary support for meetings between father and daughter. In view of the situation, the

justice of the peace decided that unaccompanied visits were not an option, especially as K.P.

was now verbally refusing to see her father. According to L.J.’s counsel, the author also

insulted her and her counsel and threatened to attack them when he visited Switzerland if he

was unable to see his daughter. In view of these factors and the urgency of the situation, the

justice of the peace suspended visitation rights on 18 May 2022 as an emergency measure.

In a temporary order issued on 8 June 2022, the justice of the peace temporarily suspended

all the author’s visitation rights. She noted that he had maintained a confrontational attitude

over a period of several years and that he clearly struggled to take into account K.P.’s needs

without thinking of his personal interests and stoking the conflict with L.J. and any person or

authority involved in the situation. Despite the stakes involved, he was unable to comply with

even the most basic conditions that would enable visits to resume. With his confrontational

and offensive attitude towards the advocates and assistants, he systematically blocked the

solutions proposed to him to facilitate the re-establishment and development of the bond with

his daughter. He was unable to examine his own behaviour or listen to the professionals’

views in this regard. Asked to comment on the suspension of visitation rights, he described

events from the couple’s past, criticized the mother’s parenting skills and positioned himself

as a victim of Swiss justice and institutions, thereby demonstrating that he is unable to put

his daughter’s interests first. He continued to argue for a visit of two consecutive weeks

without the supervision of a third party, even though he had seen very little of K.P. and was

still unable to communicate with her directly as they did not speak a common language. The

justice of the peace noted that such a visit appeared to be prejudicial to the child’s interests.

Given that Espace Contact was no longer able to remain involved and that no other structure

was available to ensure a gradual, supervised and safe resumption of contact between father

and daughter, mediated meetings – which the author refused in any case – could not be

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

12

GE.25-08780

arranged. The justice of the peace concluded that, under the circumstances, it was objectively

impossible to arrange visits in exercise of the author’s visitation rights and upheld the

suspension of those rights. In a judgment dated 14 June 2022, the President of the East Vaud

District Court banned the author from contacting L.J. and K.P. by any means whatsoever and

from being within 50 metres of them or within 200 metres of the building in which they lived,

under threat of a fine. The author’s appeals against the temporary measures ordered by the

justice of the peace on 8 June 2022 were dismissed, having been declared inadmissible by

the division responsible for contact supervision and the Federal Supreme Court, respectively.

The State Party maintains that as the author has systematically thwarted all efforts to resume

contact with K.P., the situation is currently at an impasse.

8.29

The State Party concludes that the author was able to exercise his in-person visitation

rights in August 2018, May 2019 and February 2020. He was denied an in-person visit in

August 2021 because he refused the conditions that had been set out. It is because of his

behaviour that mediated visits do not currently seem possible.

8.30

In the communication he submitted to the Committee, the author also asserts that since

March 2020, he had been unable to see his daughter on video calls twice a week as had been

ordered and that since November 2020, he had had no contact with her via Internet calls.

Here too, his assertions are not correct. In a decision dated 12 December 2019, the Sarine

District Civil Court ruled that contact via Internet calls would take place every four to six

weeks until K.P.’s fourth birthday and then on a weekly basis until 31 December 2020.

Contact via Internet calls was indeed interrupted in October 2020, and the author’s visitation

rights were temporarily suspended in an order issued on 8 February 2021; this was also due

to the author’s behaviour, notably the fact that, despite his commitment not to share further

recordings of video calls, he shared online a recording of a call on 7 October 2020, as well

as other older recordings.

8.31

As explained above, as soon as K.P.’s parents separated, the competent domestic

authorities took swift action to uphold the author’s visitation rights. As the exercise of these

rights proved difficult in view of the conflict between the author and L.J., and in particular

the author’s behaviour, the authorities acted quickly and adopted a series of measures to

enable contact to take place with support from and in the presence of third parties. It was

solely because of the author’s behaviour that ultimately visits were temporarily suspended.

It is also clear from the file that all the measures adopted and decisions handed down in the

present case were aimed at securing K.P.’s best interests.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

9.1

In his comments of 9 October 2023, the author states that the lawyers appointed by

the State were all informed that he had never had the right to contest the divorce. The author

considers that they have misrepresented him and failed to guarantee his rights in all appeals

and procedures. He also asserts that K.P.’s status as a national of the United States had already

been established before the court ordered L.J. to take the appropriate steps to have it

recognized.

9.2

The author claims that the courts defamed his character with absurd lies to justify

alienating him from his child, with the help of the State, and favoured the mother’s opinion,

that the entire divorce case is invalid and null and void since L.J.’s first marriage has not been

dissolved and that his right to custody of K.P. therefore remains in force.

9.3

The author states that he is asked to pay US$ 10,000 every two years. He is being

prosecuted for unpaid alimony by a gang of criminals who are disobeying Convention laws

by illegally collecting money in the United States. In 2023, the Fribourg Public Prosecutor’s

Office dismissed criminal charges for unpaid alimony in order to conceal its non-compliance

with the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations and implied that he was

unable to pay because he was insolvent, even though they have no financial records

concerning him.

9.4

The author claims that the Swiss authorities have limited and obstructed the

relationship between father and daughter on the basis of accusations made since 2018 that he

would kidnap his own daughter despite his having notified all competent authorities of his

request for visitation rights, in accordance with international protocols set out in the

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

GE.25-08780

13

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and despite K.P.’s

enrolment in the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Programme, an international measure

taken by a parent to prevent an international child abduction.

9.5

The author asserts that he has to endure L.J.’s accusations of attempted kidnapping

and the justice of the peace’s decision to limit visits and restrict his relationship with K.P.

while denying her right to be heard and to entrust contact supervision to incompetent

so-called facilitators who lie to cover up their incompetence. When jurisdiction was

transferred to the Canton of Vaud in July 2020, the judge ruled in favour of the mother, who

was holding the child hostage, and ended all video contact between him and his daughter

because L.J. drew the authorities’ attention to his personal videos of himself and his daughter

that he had uploaded to social media over the previous four years, a normal activity in the

United States. At the same time, the judge ignored L.J.’s criminal convictions for federal

drug offences for possession of drugs in a public park, international drug trafficking, theft

and failure to comply with court orders in respect of K.P.’s visitation rights in August 2018.

9.6

The author claims that the Federal Supreme Court covered up the judge’s violation

with blatant lies in order to support its reasons for finding his appeal inadmissible.

9.7

The author submits that in June 2023, the State Party’s authorities fabricated an illegal

arrest warrant to assist L.J. in preventing him from having access to his daughter. In July

2023, the judge limited contact to visits supervised by third parties, who later refused to

facilitate such visits.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

10.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 20 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol,

whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

10.2

The Committee notes the State Party’s claim that the communication is inadmissible

because the author, who does not have parental authority, has failed to justify acting on behalf

of K.P. without her consent, within the meaning of article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, and

that the communication should therefore be considered an abuse of the right to submit a

communication or found to be incompatible with the provisions of the Protocol and declared

inadmissible under article 7 (c) thereof.

10.3

The Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, where

communications are submitted on behalf of children, they must be submitted with their

consent unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent. It is

therefore up to the authors to provide this justification, even in cases where the authors are

the parents.2

10.4

The Committee also recalls that a parent who does not have parental authority

continues to be considered a parent in legal terms and can represent his or her children before

the Committee, unless it can be established that he or she is not acting in the best interests of

the children. Given K.P.’s young age and the disruptions to her contact with the author, and

in the light of the information contained in the file, the Committee considers that the author

can act on her behalf. The Committee therefore concludes that article 5 (2) of the Optional

Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication.

10.5

The Committee takes note of the State Party’s argument that the communication is

inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies because the appeal lodged by the author

on 12 December 2022 before the Federal Supreme Court was rejected for failure to comply

with the procedural conditions. The Committee observes, however, that the author’s

complaint relates to the alleged lack of enforcement of his visitation rights between 2018 and

2020 and that he has filed numerous legal actions in that connection. It also takes note of the

author’s undisputed assertion that no new elements could be introduced before the Federal

Supreme Court and that, consequently, legal remedies could be considered exhausted at the

2 J.P.M. and M.P.M. v. France (CRC/C/97/D/135/2021), para. 6.2.

CRC/C/99/D/150/2021

14

GE.25-08780

cantonal level. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that article 7 (e) of the

Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present

communication.

10.6

The Committee considers, however, that the author has failed to provide any

information or justification in support of his allegation that, by granting L.J. custody of K.P.,

the State Party failed to protect the child from her mother, who had allegedly endangered her

life and development. Similarly, with regard to the alleged failure to apply the provisions

relating to visitation rights, the Committee notes that the Swiss authorities promptly took

multiple measures to ensure continuity of contact between the author and K.P., in application

of the initial agreements between the parents and of the court decisions later handed down in

that connection. These measures included the appointment of two welfare advocates and the

designation of Espace Contact as a neutral location in an attempt to maintain the author’s

relationship with his daughter. The Committee also notes that it was due to the author’s

aggressive behaviour and his unauthorized sharing of footage of video calls with K.P. that

visits were temporarily suspended at certain times. It further notes that a prompt and reasoned

response was provided to each of the author’s legal actions against the decisions on parental

authority and visitation arrangements and that the child’s best interests appear to have been

a primary consideration in those responses.

11.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 7 (f) of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be transmitted to the author of the

communication and, for information, to the State Party.