The parents of a three-month-old baby in Hong Kong have filed a legal application to challenge the custody decision made by the Social Welfare Department, expressing concern over the agency's plans to provide medical treatment to the child against their wishes.
Tsang Wai-bong and Kwan Pui-sin, who lost custody of their son Danny in June, sought a writ of habeas corpus at the High Court on Wednesday. The parents contend that the removal of their son was unjustified and that the department’s supervision, which included placing Danny in a children’s shelter and restricting parental visits, infringes on their rights.
Danny was placed under the guardianship of the Social Welfare Department following the couple’s arrest on suspicion of child neglect, linked to their failure to register the infant’s birth. The parents said they had explicitly requested that Danny not be vaccinated or subjected to blood tests, citing their opposition to such medical interventions. They argue that these demands have influenced the decision to separate them from their son and impose limitations on their contact.
Speaking outside the court, Tsang alleged that the department's actions violated Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids torture and inhumane treatment. The couple maintained that restricting their visits and effectively ending breastfeeding amounted to cruel and degrading treatment.
Tsang also drew parallels with their previous experience with Swedish social services regarding their four-year-old daughter, Lily, who had been placed under care in Sweden in 2023. He stated that Swedish authorities consulted with them about vaccination and did not enforce medical procedures against their wishes, a contrast he highlighted against the current situation in Hong Kong.
The parents expressed “fear and anger” over plans to vaccinate Danny and conduct blood tests, emphasizing their intent to protect their child’s health and safety. They insisted the department had not demonstrated that their parenting posed a “significant risk of harm,” referencing a 2006 UK family court case underscoring societal tolerance for diverse parenting styles, including those involving vaccine refusal.
In response, the Social Welfare Department stated that it is exercising statutory supervision of the child in line with a court-issued protection order and that it will submit a report to the court as required. The department did not comment on specific medical interventions but noted its responsibility to ensure the child’s welfare.
The couple said they decided to seek judicial review after reviewing legal documents associated with the protection order, realizing the gravity of the infringement on their parental rights. They accused welfare authorities of failing to respect their right to family life and alleged arbitrary detention of their son. The couple remains hopeful about regaining custody and vowed to maintain their stance on medical care decisions regarding their child.