Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Custody and care and control

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

IB v. MCR

Citation

[2025] HKFC 42
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10128/2017

Grant leave for the child to relocate to Zurich because, after a holistic welfare balancing exercise with the child's best interests paramount, the mother is the child's primary and sole carer, is better placed to support the child's diagnosed learning difficulties and emotional needs during daily life and school adjustment; the proposed Zurich school environment (IM) and smaller class setting better fit the child's needs; the child's expressed preference for Zurich is given due weight; the father's proposed schools in Los Angeles are likely to be overwhelming and his capacity as sole daily c…
24 Feb 2025

黎對凌

Citation

[2025] HKFC 31
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17193/2014

Court accepted social welfare and clinical psychologist reports that there was no evidence mother deliberately alienated the child; the child, competent for his age, expressed a settled wish to live with mother; maintaining stability and status quo was in the child's best interests; therefore order varied to joint custody with mother having care and control and a defined contact regime for father, and limited travel permission for mother with safeguards.
5 Jul 2024

HYCC, also known as CHYC v. OJW also known as WOJ

Citation

[2024] HKFC 134
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9529/2019

Leave to relocate granted because the holistic welfare assessment favored relocation: mother is the primary emotional anchor for the children, the relocation plan was realistic and well researched, the children's wishes (particularly the son's) carry weight given his age and sensitivity, safety and schooling in Manila were acceptable, the negative impact on the mother (and thereby the children) of refusing leave was significant, and the father can maintain meaningful contact through access arrangements and travel.
18 May 2023

DAP v. WPYC

Citation

[2023] HKFC 91
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP167/2020

Maintain status quo Sunday-Monday access as it better serves the child's best interests by minimizing disruption and because father's reasons (family Zoom on Sunday and fixed work-from-home Monday) were credible; set detailed access timetable, school attendance days, limited structured grandparental access with notice and conditions, holiday allocations, uncapped make-up access within 6 weeks, requirement for a 12-month well-being review and SIR report, and no order as to costs.
17 Nov 2021

BR also known as RB v. P

Citation

[2021] HKFC 234
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13192/2019

Given the Respondent's repeated breaches of the injunction, his failure to file opposing affidavits or attend the reserved hearing, and the Petitioner's entitlement and legal aid status, the court exercised its discretion to order the Respondent to pay the Petitioner's costs of and arising out of the summons dated 21 July 2020 including the costs reserved on 30 July 2020, 12 October 2020 and 25 January 2021; those costs are to be taxed party and party if not agreed and the Petitioner's own costs are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
19 Apr 2021

CS v. WDT

Citation

[2021] HKFC 89
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5660/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success; a leave to appeal application is a discrete issue where costs follow the event; three counsel were not justified on a party and party basis; accordingly costs were summary assessed at HK$91,789 (solicitors HK$21,789; two counsel HK$70,000) and ordered to be paid by the Mother to the Father within 28 days.
3 Feb 2021

C v. S

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP929/2017

Court found insufficient evidence that Mother engaged in parental alienation. The evidence established the child had made disclosures of being scolded or struck on several occasions but multidisciplinary enquiries (MDCC, SWRs and clinical input) did not support safety findings amounting to proven child abuse. Balancing the child's best interests, psychiatric history and strong bond with Mother, the Court retained sole custody and care with Mother and maintained access to Father under existing orders with specified venue modifications and review, because stability and gradual rebuilding of the…
3 Dec 2020

JTMW v. NAV

Citation

[2020] HKFC 244
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

Judge found the father's application genuine and realistic, accepted evidence that relocation offered greater long-term welfare (family support, improved schooling and father's career stability), gave weight to boys' expressed wishes and to Official Solicitor and social worker reports, concluded detriment to mother could be mitigated by continued access and opportunities for extended family contact, and therefore granted leave to relocate as being in the boys' best interests.
25 Feb 2020

YSYM v. LHB

Citation

[2020] HKFC 35
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC19025/2012

The court refused the mother’s application to remove/relocate the children because, viewing the child’s welfare as paramount, the removal plan was not demonstrated to be realistic or secure: inadequate and uncertain childcare and fallback arrangements in Vancouver, the mother’s likely prioritisation of her own desire to leave, material risk that relocation would further damage an already poor father–children relationship given the record of unsatisfactory access, and the mother’s inability to allay concerns about immigration/job contingency; accordingly the SWO recommendation was not adopted…
2 Jul 2019

R, MJ v. OAM, also known as R, AO

Citation

[2019] HKFC 173
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4362/2016

Leave to appeal refused because the father did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice; the trial judge properly applied the law, made discretionary findings after seeing witnesses, gave adequate reasons, and the custody decision in favour of the mother was not plainly wrong and was in the child's best interests.