Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Access (contact)

  • 28 Jun 2023

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 113
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    Sole custody and care and control were retained by the mother because there was no evidence of harm from the mother's care, the children (aged 16 and 14) consistently opposed a change of residence, expert evidence attributed the children's distress to parental conflict rather than maternal alienation, the father failed to demonstrate capacity or realistic arrangements for residence and had conduct (including refusing offered access and coercive behavior) undermining his case; reasonable access in pairs ordered; FSC or compulsory reunification therapy refused because it would be inappropriate…

  • 19 Oct 2020

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 832
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP155/2020

    The adjournment of the interim access application to await an updated social investigation report was a proper exercise of case management discretion aimed at protecting the children's welfare; there was no error of law, no engagement of BORO/UNCRC requiring immediate intervention, and therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

  • 8 Jun 2016

    LCSA v. AP

    Citation
    LCSA v. AP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2295/2014

    The court applied the paramountcy principle: unchallenged affidavit evidence, psychologist reports and social investigation established genuine, long-standing fear and emotional harm to the children; the Respondent filed no evidential material and could not be given weight; compulsory or direct access would impede recovery. Therefore only indirect access by a dedicated email account is in the childrens best interests at this time.

  • 29 Sept 2015

    LWY v. YCT

    Citation
    LWY v. YCT
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9363/2014

    On full consideration of evidence, the court found it was in C's best interests to grant day-to-day care and control to the Father because C had been living with the Father and primarily cared for by the paternal grandmother, the social worker's findings and status quo supported continuity, and disruption from transiting between parents' districts and to a new nursery would be detrimental; accordingly defined access for the Mother was ordered to minimise disruption.