Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Parental rights

  • 29 Mar 2022

    CCM v. KPH

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 918
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1557/2021

    Given the Applicant's demonstrated role as de facto guardian since the mother's death, the minor's settled arrangements and expressed wish, the Father's non-involvement and non-opposition, and the social worker's recommendation, the court exercised its power under section 8D GMO to appoint the Applicant as guardian because that appointment is in the minor's best interests and is necessary to enable decisions requiring parental authority.

  • 10 Sept 2021

    C v. R

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2706
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1080/2021

    HD was habitually resident in Hong Kong immediately before removal; the father held and was exercising rights of custody (including interim access and ongoing proceedings for joint custody); the mother unilaterally removed HD to the UK without the father's consent or leave of the court, thereby breaching those custody rights within the meaning of Article 3; accordingly an Article 15 declaration was warranted and granted.

  • 21 May 2021

    AA v. BB

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 1401
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2342/2020

    Where the welfare checklist and evidence (including social welfare report and the children's views) show it is in the children's best interests, the Court has power under section 10(1) of the GMO or its inherent jurisdiction to order joint custody and joint care and control and to appoint the Respondent as guardian to act jointly with the Applicant; on that basis the Court granted the orders and de‑warded the children.

  • 18 Oct 2017

    CCMJ v. SSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKL

    Citation
    CCMJ v. SSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1269/2017

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that a generic "reasonable access" order would be ineffective where access had been heavily contested since 2010, justifying appellate scrutiny; no further access order was made because a prior interim order by B Chu J provided specific Saturday access and the court found that supplementary directions were unnecessary; costs of the application were ordered in the cause of the appeal and the Respondent's costs were to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

  • 12 Oct 2017

    C v. S

    Citation
    C v. S
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP929/2017

    The father satisfied the Re H factors (commitment, attachment and legitimate reasons); there was no cogent evidence that granting him all rights would adversely affect the child's welfare; therefore, in the child's best interests the court exercised its discretion under s3(1)(d) GMO to grant the father all the rights and authority he would have if the child were legitimate; costs were awarded against the mother for unreasonable opposition.

  • 20 Dec 2016

    彭鳯琼及另二人 對 衞生署及另八人

    Citation
    彭鳯琼及另二人 對 衞生署及另八人
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV108/2016

    Appeals dismissed because the pleaded causes lacked reasonable cause, were repetitive of earlier proceedings and constituted abuse of process; the judge's exercise of discretion to order security for costs was appropriate where the appellant had a history of unsuccessful litigation, outstanding costs and no prospect of success.

  • 28 Oct 2016

    CLP v. CSN (formerly known as HTY or HTYZ) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CLP v. CSN (formerly known as HTY or HTYZ) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV255/2015

    Section 8D(2)(b) must be construed to require that the minor has no parent, guardian or other person having parental rights; because the mother retained parental rights under s3(1) GMO the court had no jurisdiction to appoint the grandmother as guardian under s8D(2)(b); legislative history supports this limited construction; appeal dismissed.

  • 4 Sept 2015

    CLP v. CSN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HTY OR HTZ) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CLP v. CSN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HTY OR HTZ) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP102/2014

    The court lacks jurisdiction to appoint the grandmother guardian under s8D(2)(b) because the natural mother retains parental rights under the GMO; s8D(2)(b) applies only where the minor 'does not have any parent, guardian or other person having parental rights' and that factual and legal threshold was not met. The father similarly lacks rights due to illegitimacy absent a court order, but that does not affect the mother's continuing parental rights; accordingly the guardianship application under s8D(2)(b) must be refused.

  • 27 Jul 2005

    WSM v. FSY

    Citation
    WSM v. FSY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV352/2004

    The judge's discretionary custody decision in favour of the mother was correct: the child's welfare required day‑to‑day care the mother could provide, siblings should remain together where practicable, the social workers' recommendation for separate custody lacked substantial grounds, and the appellate court will not interfere unless the judge is plainly wrong.

  • 28 May 1993

    In Re. C (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment)

    Citation
    In Re. C (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1218/1993

    The court held that on the facts the infant would certainly die without surgery and had a real chance of a relatively normal life if the operation succeeded; accordingly it was in the child's best interests to be made a ward of court and to authorise the emergency operation and angiogram, overruling the parents' refusal.