E v. F

E v. F

The fathers applications were dismissed because the expert and social investigation evidence established that the children are fragile, resist contact with the father, and that the fathers personality traits and parenting style have materially contributed to the breakdown; varying to unsupervised access or permitting removal would not be in the childrens best interests and forcing contact would cause further harm; therefore interim arrangements favour continuing supervised contact and care with the mother.

Citation
[2018] HKFC 130
Parties
Petitioner (mother): E; Respondent (father): F
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Case Number
FCMC6134/2017
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Child Custody and Access (interim Applications: Variation of Access and Removal) / Interim Hearing in Chambers (applications/summonses Awaiting Custody Trial)
Outcome
Fathers two applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Access, Removal of Children Abroad, Interim Custody Orders, Parental Responsibility, Parental Alienation, Child Psychological Assessment
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Law Child Welfare Custody and Access International Relocation Variation of Access Removal of Children Abroad Interim Custody Orders +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Petitioner (mother)

F

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Child Custody and Access (interim Applications: Variation of Access and Removal) / Interim Hearing in Chambers (applications/summonses Awaiting Custody Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary interim access from supervised to unsupervised
  2. 2 Whether to grant leave for removal of the children to the United Kingdom
  3. 3 Whether change of care and control or interim residence arrangements is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The fathers applications were dismissed because the expert and social investigation evidence established that the children are fragile, resist contact with the father, and that the fathers personality traits and parenting style have materially contributed to the breakdown; varying to unsupervised access or permitting removal would not be in the childrens best interests and forcing contact would cause further harm; therefore interim arrangements favour continuing supervised contact and care with the mother.

Court Disposition

Fathers two applications dismissed

Orders

  • Fathers two applications for variation of access and removal dismissed
  • No order as to costs; order to be in form of an order nisi