Court dismisses application by parents in 'Save Lily' saga to revoke infant son's protection order

A Hong Kong court has rejected an application by the couple involved in the high-profile "Save Lily" controversy seeking to overturn a care and protection order for their infant son, Danny. 

The boy was previously placed under the care of the Social Welfare Department for 36 months under an order issued by the West Kowloon Juvenile Court following his home birth. 

Following a closed-door hearing on Friday, the magistrate dismissed the couple's bid to discharge the order, prompting the parents to express extreme distress and state that they are actively considering a judicial review.

Speaking outside the courtroom after the hearing, the father, surnamed Tsang, and the mother, surnamed Kwan, revealed that the Social Welfare Department had raised new concerns during the proceedings. 

According to the couple, officials argued that their current residence is subject to a short-term lease and claimed that caseworkers had been unable to reach them by phone. 

The parents maintained that email communication represents the most practical and efficient way to stay in touch. 

They also stated that they had provided the department with the contact number for their current hotel, which provides a message-taking service to notify them if they miss a call. 

The parents added that they had sent roughly 60 emails to the department to facilitate communication, only for officials to characterize the messages as harassment.

Couple alleges department concealed medical records and vows to seek legal advice

The parents strongly criticized the department for allegedly concealing crucial evidence, claiming that the accusations put them at an unfair disadvantage and deprived them of an opportunity to mount a proper defense. 

While the department accused them of child neglect by failing to seek necessary medical treatments for Danny, the couple asserted that medical reports confirmed the baby is in good health and requires no medical interventions. 

They further contended that authorities have never clearly outlined the standards or benchmarks they must meet to regain custody of their son.

Expressing deep frustration with the proceedings, the parents stated that the court failed to provide them with a fair hearing and described their current emotional state as severely distressed. 

They indicated that they plan to seek legal counsel to explore the possibility of challenging the decision through a judicial review.

𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗽 ↓