TAC v. VDC nee VDM

TAC v. VDC nee VDM

The judge concluded the mother’s application to relocate should be granted subject to conditions and timing: experts did not recommend removal of the child from the mother though they expressed concerns about maternal personality features and need for treatment; CCTV and further evidence did not show the mother to be a danger to the child; the child’s welfare is best served by preserving maternal care and both parents’ involvement. Accordingly permission to relocate to B with effect from 28 March 2013 was granted, joint custody was ordered and a shared care regime in Hong Kong established until relocation; if the father cannot relocate within a reasonable period the court will vest care...

Citation
TAC v. VDC nee VDM
Parties
Petitioner: TAC; Respondent: VDC nee VDM
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Case Number
FCMC16497/2010
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial/relocation (child Removal) / Judgment
Outcome
Mother granted permission to permanently remove the child to B, USA; permission to take effect from 28 March 2013; parties ordered to joint custody and shared care while both reside in Hong Kong; contingency that if father cannot relocate mother to have care and control with reasonable access to father; mother to...
Legal Topics
Relocation Application, Custody and Care and Control, Shared Care and Parallel Parenting, Expert Psychological Evidence and Risk Assessment, Hague Convention/uccjea Jurisdictional Issues
Source Language
EN
Family Law Child Custody Relocation/removal International Child Law Mental Health and Child Welfare Relocation Application Custody and Care and Control Shared Care and Parallel Parenting +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAC

Petitioner

VDC nee VDM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial/relocation (child Removal) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother should be permitted to permanently remove the child from Hong Kong to B, USA
  2. 2 Whether the mother’s mental health (features of borderline personality traits/major depressive episode) creates unacceptable risk to the child or to the father-child relationship
  3. 3 Appropriate custody, care and control and access/shared care arrangements pending and after relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge concluded the mother’s application to relocate should be granted subject to conditions and timing: experts did not recommend removal of the child from the mother though they expressed concerns about maternal personality features and need for treatment; CCTV and further evidence did not show the mother to be a danger to the child; the child’s welfare is best served by preserving maternal care and both parents’ involvement. Accordingly permission to relocate to B with effect from 28 March 2013 was granted, joint custody was ordered and a shared care regime in Hong Kong established until relocation; if the father cannot relocate within a reasonable period the court will vest care...

Court Disposition

Mother granted permission to permanently remove the child to B, USA; permission to take effect from 28 March 2013; parties ordered to joint custody and shared care while both reside in Hong Kong; contingency that if father cannot relocate mother to have care and control with reasonable access to father; mother to...

Orders

  • Leave granted for the Respondent (mother) to permanently remove the child C from Hong Kong to B, USA with effect from 28 March 2013
  • Parties to have joint custody of the child (parents to be consulted on major decisions)