Facts
[X.] and [Z.] (Peruvian national) had married in August 1997. Their son [Y.] was born in 1999. The spouses separated in May 2005. Upon the wife's request, the District Court of Horgen issued protective measures, which included the mother's custody of the son and the father's supervised visitation rights. On 17 August 2010, [X.] filed for divorce at the District Court of Horgen. The District Court maintained the aforementioned arrangement for personal contact between the father and son and ordered the equal division of [X.] 's pension assets. Before the Cantonal Court of Zurich, [X.] requested the revocation of the visitation rights and the waiver of the division of the vested benefits. The Cantonal Court granted [Z.] the right to write letters to [Y.] and to send him photos and usual gifts instead of personal visitation rights. It confirmed the equal division of the pension assets. Furthermore, it imposed the appeal court costs on [X.] and ordered her to pay [Z.] a party indemnity.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined [X.] 's appeal against the division of the pension assets and the allocation of costs. It concluded that the requirements for deviating from the equal division of the pension assets pursuant to Art. 123 para. 2 CC were not met. The appellant could not demonstrate that the division would be manifestly inequitable. The allegation of…