Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Access/supervised access

  • 20 Jan 2020

    SLH (nee N) v. GAH

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 29
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16058/2016

    Applying the welfare principle the court found sole custody and sole care and control to the mother was necessary because meaningful joint custody was unrealistic given the father's documented behavioural instability, lack of sustained engagement and non-compliance with treatment; leave for the two older boys to attend the specified New Zealand boarding school and for the mother to relocate permanently to New Zealand from 1 July 2020 was granted because the relocation was genuine, feasible, in the children’s best interests and did not amount to an unjustifiable impediment to the father's abil…

  • 3 Dec 2018

    C, OKA v. R, MTP

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 218
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP180/2017

    Leave to relocate was granted because the father’s application was genuine and realistic, he is the primary carer with capacity to provide for the child in Japan, social welfare recommended joint custody with father having care and control, and the child’s best interests weighed in favour of relocation provided detailed access safeguards (breathalyzer testing, phased overnight stays, scheduled holidays, remote contact and reciprocal travel) were imposed.

  • 3 Dec 2014

    NAV v. JTMW

    Citation
    NAV v. JTMW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4191/2012

    On the evidence before the court (childrens accounts, school incident reports, social welfare officers observations and ongoing police involvement) there was a prima facie risk to the childrens safety that justified continuation of the interim protective orders of 29 October 2014 pending the outcome of professional investigations and the substantive trial; accordingly the interim suspension of the 5/5 arrangement and grant of interim care to the father with supervised access to the mother was justified to protect the children.

  • 10 Oct 2014

    KKF (nee N) v. JAF

    Citation
    KKF (nee N) v. JAF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7859/2012

    Sole care and control was awarded to the Respondent because the Petitioner's diagnosed alcohol dependence, repeated breaches of undertakings, inconsistent and unreliable accounts, and lack of sustained treatment created an unacceptable risk to the children; access was limited to defined supervised contact outside the Petitioner's home and conditioned on verified continuous sobriety by a court‑approved blood testing protocol, regular psychiatric treatment, completion of a parenting course and reassessment by joint experts, all as necessary to protect the children's best interests.