Recovery Attempts and Early Legal Complications
After returning to Switzerland, the father filed a complaint in November 2021 and activated the first Hague Convention. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful, as Ukrainian authorities showed little willingness to engage, despite the fact that the child’s legal residence was in Switzerland and both parents were married and living together. Given these complications, the father contacted members of the maternal family, offering money in exchange for cooperation. Between January 2 and 5, 2022, he was able to bring Kim back to Switzerland with her mother. At that point, the mother had also refused to continue her cancer treatment, breaking the trust between the parents.
Another Abduction and Emergency Intervention in Poland
The ongoing conflict led to another abduction around August 2023. Kim ended up in Warsaw, Poland, around 10:00 PM, after being taken from Lausanne by other Ukrainian nationals, with no plan for overnight accommodation. Kim’s mother contacted the father to urgently request help—proof available. The father quickly booked an emergency hotel and paid for a taxi to pick up his wife and daughter, then alerted the authorities to report the abduction. Polish police intervened, with evidence to support the case, and the father covered all repatriation costs.
Despite this, he was still required to pay child support, even though the funds he provided were not used for Kim’s care—he alone continued to purchase all essential items for his daughter. Child protection services in Switzerland even forbade the father from helping Kim, despite a supervision mandate granted by the Lausanne District Court.
After repatriating his daughter, the father again filed a complaint and submitted a legal request to obtain custody. Unfortunately, the court ignored the request, seemingly refusing to recognize the incident as an abduction—because doing so would have required making a decision they were unwilling to make.
In January 2024, Kim was abducted once more and is currently in Ukraine. Social worker Ms. Fabre from the Direction générale de l'enfance et de la jeunesse (DGEJ) continues to oppose granting custody to the father. According to Ms. Fabre, there was “no urgency” for the Lausanne District Court to transfer custody to the father, suggesting that Kim could remain in Ukraine for several more months.
The father’s lawyer later reviewed the case files at the DGEJ office and found no evidence to justify Ms. Fabre’s actions. During a hearing, the father openly accused Ms. Fabre of bias and expressed a complete loss of trust in the justice system. Following this, the judge finally approved the father’s request and granted him full custody—after the mother’s medical records were released. Notably, Ms. Fabre was already fully aware of the mother’s health condition.
Sabotage of ISMV Meeting
A critical meeting between the father and ISMV (Supportive Intervention in the Living Environment) was reportedly sabotaged by social worker Ms. Fabre to create a pretext for placing Kim in foster care—this claim is supported by evidence. Ms. Fabre also regularly withheld important medical information about Kim’s mother from the Lausanne District Court.
She never submitted the report from the first ISMV visit, which took place at the family home in Lausanne, where Kim and her father were present. During this visit, and others planned in agreement with ISMV—including one where the team was invited to observe how the father prepared meals and cared for his daughter—Ms. Fabre intervened and canceled the meetings at the mother’s request.
The father now struggles to recall when he was actually able to exercise his shared parental authority, as Ms. Fabre consistently overstepped the limits of her role. The question remains: in whose interest was she acting?
