VE (nee KE) v. VRJ

VE (nee KE) v. VRJ

The judge concluded that relocation to Colorado was in the children’s best interests: the father’s application was genuine and realistically planned; he was the primary carer with greater emotional stability; the mother’s unresolved anger management and risk of marginalising the father posed a real detriment to the children if they remained in Hong Kong; financial realities made the father’s plan necessary; accordingly leave to remove was granted, sole custody remained with the father and care and control was allocated to the father during school terms and to the mother during school holidays, with substantial access and electronic contact preserved.

Citation
VE (nee KE) v. VRJ
Parties
Petitioner: VE (nee KE); Respondent: VRJ
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2015
Case Number
FCMC7676/2011
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (relocation and Child Custody) / Trial Concluded and Judgment Handed Down (deputy District Judge I. Wong, 4 June 2015)
Outcome
Leave granted for respondent to relocate permanently to Colorado, USA; respondent retains sole custody; care and control shared by respondent (school terms) and petitioner (school holidays); substantial access and electronic contact preserved; costs nisi: no order as to costs to be made absolute after 14 days.
Legal Topics
Relocation, Custody, Care and Control, Access, Best Interests of the Child, Psychological Assessment, Parental Alienation and Marginalisation
Source Language
EN
Family Law Child Custody International Relocation Guardianship Relocation Custody Care and Control Access +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VE (nee KE)

Petitioner

VRJ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (relocation and Child Custody) / Trial Concluded and Judgment Handed Down (deputy District Judge I. Wong, 4 June 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent should be granted leave to permanently remove the children from Hong Kong to Colorado, USA
  2. 2 Whether the consent order should be varied as to custody, care and control and access
  3. 3 How the children’s time should be allocated between the parents if relocation is permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge concluded that relocation to Colorado was in the children’s best interests: the father’s application was genuine and realistically planned; he was the primary carer with greater emotional stability; the mother’s unresolved anger management and risk of marginalising the father posed a real detriment to the children if they remained in Hong Kong; financial realities made the father’s plan necessary; accordingly leave to remove was granted, sole custody remained with the father and care and control was allocated to the father during school terms and to the mother during school holidays, with substantial access and electronic contact preserved.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for respondent to relocate permanently to Colorado, USA; respondent retains sole custody; care and control shared by respondent (school terms) and petitioner (school holidays); substantial access and electronic contact preserved; costs nisi: no order as to costs to be made absolute after 14 days.

Orders

  • Leave for the respondent to relocate permanently with the children to Colorado, United States of America
  • Sole custody of the children remains with the respondent