Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent to adoption

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2020

G, by his next friend CHAN LUI LUNA v. BVR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1803/2014

The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r6(2)(b) to grant Mr and Mrs K leave to intervene in the wardship proceedings for the limited purpose of applying for prior authorisation under s23A(1)(c) of the Adoption Ordinance because the wardship court is the guardian of the child, prior leave is needed to avoid breaching s23A, and it is practical and proportionate to determine the s23A application within the existing wardship proceedings subject to safeguards (a confidentiality undertaking and a six‑month time limit).
14 Dec 1992

MR C AND ANOTHER v. MR D AND ANOTHER

Citation

MR C AND ANOTHER v. MR D AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAD2/1992

The District Court's appointment of Mr D was legally indefensible and must be set aside because Mr D lacked the specialized child-welfare qualifications and the independent appearance required of a guardian ad litem and because being a paid private operator created a real and apparent conflict undermining his independence; therefore the Director of Social Welfare is substituted as guardian ad litem and District Judges should appoint only organisations specialising in adoption or individuals with appropriate child-related training backed by sufficient resources.
11 Feb 1985

RE AN INFANT

Citation

RE AN INFANT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA78/1982

The father did not abandon the child under s.6(1)(a) but was found to be unreasonably withholding his consent under s.6(1)(c) due to insincere and unsupported objections; however, because any welfare benefit from adoption was marginal and adoption after remarriage requires rare and exceptional circumstances to dispense with consent, the court refused to exercise its discretion and denied the adoption application.
12 Aug 1977

RE INFANT

Citation

RE INFANT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP53/1977

The court refused to dispense with the father's consent under section 6 because the applicants knowingly misled authorities about the father's whereabouts and his clear objection; there were insufficient cogent reasons to sever the child from his natural family. Applying the welfare principle, the court found the child would be better off in the father's household and therefore granted the father's application for custody, care and control.

Hong Kong Case Law

G, by his next friend CHAN LUI LUNA v. BVR AND OTHERS

MR C AND ANOTHER v. MR D AND ANOTHER

RE AN INFANT

RE INFANT