Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Interim custody

  • 6 May 2020

    W, K M v. K,J

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 47
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP92/2018

    On interim evidence including the single joint expert and social investigation reports indicating the father’s denigration of the mother and risk of parental alienation, and applying the paramountcy of the child's best interests together with statutory custody rules for an illegitimate child, the court granted interim care and control to the mother and ordered a specific access regime for the father while refusing appointment of the wife as guardian.

  • 16 Mar 2016

    C v. N

    Citation
    C v. N
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP154/2016

    Taiwan is the childrens habitual residence and the appropriate forum to determine substantive custody; Hong Kong will therefore decline to assume substantive jurisdiction but will temporarily exercise wardship jurisdiction to make prompt, summary interim orders and secure undertakings to facilitate the childrens orderly return to Taiwan and protect their welfare pending Taiwan proceedings.

  • 26 Sept 2014

    EMD v. MAM

    Citation
    EMD v. MAM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP184/2014

    Although the unilateral removal to Hong Kong was undesirable and not generally in children's best interests, the respondent had not engaged with the proceedings and her whereabouts and intentions were unknown. To avoid leaving the children in an untenable position pending any return or further application, the court exercised its discretion to grant interim joint custody with interim care and control to the Applicant, without prejudice to any application the Respondent may make for return of the children, and subject to interim access for the Respondent.

  • 18 Nov 2005

    CYLR v. CYSA

    Citation
    CYLR v. CYSA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV282/2005

    On the material before the judge at the inter parte hearing — the child’s young age, the established role of the domestic helper now employed by the father in daily care, the mother’s past emotional instability and circumstances that risked repetition, and the need to put the child’s welfare first — it was a proper exercise of discretion under s19(a) to confirm interim care and control in favour of the father; the ex parte order was superseded by the inter parte decision and there was no basis to vary that order on appeal.

  • 15 Nov 2000

    ZHEN XIAO TING v. YU SAN CHUEN

    Citation
    ZHEN XIAO TING v. YU SAN CHUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV404/2000

    The Court of Appeal held the deputy judge properly exercised her discretion in awarding interim custody, care and control to the mother because the child's welfare was best served by placement with her natural parent; the social worker's recommendation favouring the grandmother did not outweigh the welfare principle, and there was no justification for ordering a clinical psychologist. The appeal was dismissed.

  • 9 May 1997

    L v. L

    Citation
    L v. L
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7902/1996

    On balance of evidence and guided by the paramountcy of the child's welfare, the judge found that returning the infant to the full-time care of her mother best served the child's interests despite the social welfare recommendation favouring status quo; the mother's capacity, willingness and suitable home outweighed risks of changing carers at this age.

  • 10 Apr 1992

    TONY FUNG WING CHEUNG v. SUSAN RENE FUNG

    Citation
    TONY FUNG WING CHEUNG v. SUSAN RENE FUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV54/1992

    Where affidavits are directly conflicting and the judge is not in a position to resolve disputed facts, the judge may properly exercise discretion on interim welfare grounds; having considered children's needs, the welfare report, the conflicting evidence, and the father's conduct and delay, the judge did not err in granting leave to take the children to Bali and the appeal must be dismissed.