Legislator Case Law & Legislation
21 08 96 • KG LU 21 08 96 AI generated

Sole Custodian Not Guilty of Child Abduction

Case Number 21 08 96
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court ruled that the holder of the sole parental custody cannot be guilty of the offense of child abduction under Article 220 of the Criminal Code, as this provision protects the right to determine the minor's whereabouts, which belongs exclusively to the custodian. The case concerned an individual against whom charges were brought for withholding a minor following a divorce decree that granted her sole parental custody; the court reasoned that since Article 220 criminalizes depriving the holder of parental authority (or custody) and the sole custodian holds this right without restriction, they cannot, by definition, be the perpetrator who denies this right to another party, distinguishing this situation from cases where both parents share custody or during separation proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 220 StGB, Art. 297 Abs. 1 ZGB, Art. 297 Abs. 2 ZGB; Sole Custodian Not Guilty of Child Abduction: The case concerned an individual against whom charges were brought for withholding a minor following a divorce decree that granted her sole parental custody; the court reasoned that since Article 220 criminalizes depriving the holder of parental authority (or custody) and the sole custodian holds this right without restriction, they cannot, by definition, be the perpetrator who denies this right to another party, distinguishing this situation from cases where both parents share custody or during separation proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
sole parental custody abduction of a minor criminal offense child lawful domicile custodial sentence presumption of innocence

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Cited Case Law

AI generated
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 220 StGB

The appellant, as the sole holder of parental authority following the divorce, could not fulfill the requirements of this article.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Strafrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 24.11.2008

Fallnummer: · 21 08 96

LGVE: · 2009 I Nr. 50

Leitsatz: · Art. 220 StGB. Der Inhaber der (alleinigen) elterlichen Sorge kann sich nicht des Entziehens von Unmündigen schuldig machen.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.