Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Parenting coordinator

  • 9 Jan 2024

    HKW v. YYC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 262
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3123/2021

    The court awarded joint custody but granted sole day-to-day care and control to the mother (petitioner) because she was the primary carer, had a more stable and flexible work schedule, and reliable support from family and an experienced domestic helper; the father's 8-day shifting roster limited his capacity to provide routine care. The court accepted and gave weight to the Social Investigation Reports' recommendations, imposed a 12-month supervision order, directed appointment of a parenting coordinator and made defined access arrangements for the father, balancing contact with the child's w…

  • 8 Jan 2021

    TSYV v. LWSV

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 273
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12681/2014

    Court granted the Mother's application for leave to file and serve a further expert psychological report and ordered that supervised access continue until further order; the Court held that uplift of supervised access is not automatic upon an expert's recommendation but is subject to Court approval, that experts cannot usurp the Court's functions, and that leave to adduce further expert evidence is justified on the facts and procedural principles balancing justice and case management.

  • 8 Oct 2018

    STY v. LMSC

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 170
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5382/2015

    Applying the best interests principle the court refused the mother's application to move the children to CDNIS given lack of evidence of clear academic advantage and the risk of disruption and psychological harm from repeated rejections; held both children shall remain in the ESF system unless mutual agreement otherwise; granted leave for A to apply to WIS (with IS as fallback) and for C to remain at Glenealy then proceed to WIS; granted the requested limited tutoring (including a Wednesday writing workshop that overlaps paternal access for 10 weeks) and ordered tutoring costs shared equally;…

  • 9 Mar 2016

    JDYS v. EYCK also known as KEYC

    Citation
    JDYS v. EYCK also known as KEYC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12871/2009

    Court accepted the childrens' ascertainable wishes to see their father more and accepted the SWO and SJE that shared care was feasible but found a full week-on/week-off regime too radical for the youngest child and would not meet the father's concerns about weekday involvement. Balancing welfare checklist factors and parental capacities, the court varied care and control to a structured shared arrangement: children to stay with father from Thursday after school until Saturday 8:30pm during term, with detailed safeguards (fixed daily contact window, consultation rules for ECAs, online calendar…

  • 8 Dec 2014

    WTV v. WMC

    Citation
    WTV v. WMC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP54/2014

    Given the high level of parental conflict, the mother's established primary caregiving role, and the children's best interests, the court ordered joint custody with care and control vested in the mother and structured staying access to the father for five nights every two weeks (Wednesday after school to Monday morning), subject to the father's undertaking to apply for leave for those periods; appointed a parenting coordinator; divided school holidays 50:50; required telephone/Skype contact when children are with the other parent; and prohibited removal from Hong Kong without consent or court…

  • 10 Oct 2014

    KKF (nee N) v. JAF

    Citation
    KKF (nee N) v. JAF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7859/2012

    Sole care and control was awarded to the Respondent because the Petitioner's diagnosed alcohol dependence, repeated breaches of undertakings, inconsistent and unreliable accounts, and lack of sustained treatment created an unacceptable risk to the children; access was limited to defined supervised contact outside the Petitioner's home and conditioned on verified continuous sobriety by a court‑approved blood testing protocol, regular psychiatric treatment, completion of a parenting course and reassessment by joint experts, all as necessary to protect the children's best interests.