Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Shared care

  • 3 Oct 2022

    WKI also known as IWKV v. CKW also known as WCKW

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 181
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11528/2019

    Joint custody with shared care and control ordered because both parents are capable of meeting the child's physical, emotional and educational needs; expert reports and the child's expressed wish support substantial time with both parents; there had been measurable improvement in cooperation under interim orders; gradual transition to a week-on-week arrangement (beginning after one term) best serves child's welfare; supervision by SWO and appointment of a parental coordinator required to manage risks and practicalities.

  • 27 Apr 2022

    L, ACHY v. Y, C

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 94
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2057/2016

    The mother's summons was dismissed because the existing detailed shared care order (made after trial) should not be varied on the basis of the then-public health situation which had since stabilised; a mandatory negative COVID test before hand-over was unnecessary and disproportionate given parental responsibility and protective measures; there was insufficient evidence of parental alienation to justify injunctive relief, and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant prohibitory relief against non-parties; accordingly the summons is dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

  • 10 Mar 2022

    GKLJ v. WE also known as WFYE

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 45
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16521/2015

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied section 63A, considered all evidence and expert reports, made discretionary findings within the ambit of judicial discretion on the child's best interests, and the proposed grounds did not show a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice warranting an appeal.

  • 30 Apr 2021

    LCH v. JMC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 88
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP179/2019

    The court refused the mother's application to relocate the child to Toronto because the relocation would significantly undermine the child's relationship with her father and was not in the child's best interests on a welfare analysis; the court therefore ordered joint custody and shared care with a specific access regime for the father (two blocks of four consecutive days overnight per month plus six further day accesses per month, totalling 14 days monthly), school holidays to be split equally, and no order as to costs nisi to be absolute in 14 days.

  • 7 Apr 2021

    WWK v. WWH

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 70
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6552/2018

    Shared care ordered with the child in the father's care from 6:00pm Thursdays to 10:00am Sundays and in the mother's care otherwise because this arrangement best balances the child's expressed need for more time with his father, the Social Welfare Officer's recommendations, the importance of continuity and stability in schooling and peer network, the practical caregiving capacities of both parents and available family support; a 6-month supervision order and progress report are necessary to monitor adjustment.

  • 11 Mar 2021

    G, DV also known as DL.V v. GVNA also known as VNA. G

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 55
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7518/2017

    The court found shared care in AG's welfare best interest and ordered a 2:2:5:5 term-time shared care regime (mother Wednesdays and Thursdays, father Mondays and Tuesdays) with weekends alternated after the first post-Easter weekend to mother; practical constraints such as the school bus did not outweigh the welfare benefits of alternating weekends; each party to arrange school transport when child is in their care; costs order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days with petitioner’s costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations and a further hearing fixed.

  • 29 Dec 2020

    CS v. WCT

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 276
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5660/2020

    Joint custody with equal shared care and control on a seven-to-seven bi-weekly basis is in the children's best interests; the court accepted the Social Welfare Officer's and Clinical Psychologist's recommendations, found the interim parallel parenting arrangement was working, and concluded that sole custody would create imbalance and likely increase parental conflict to the detriment of the children.

  • 18 Sept 2020

    S, V v. M, S

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 197
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2868/2018

    Allegations of sexual or inappropriate conduct by the father were not substantiated; the mother's gatekeeping and undermining of the father had materially influenced R; the Single Joint Experts' recommendations that continued substantial paternal involvement was in the children's best interests were persuasive; therefore joint custody remains, shared care for R is ordered with a phased reinstatement of overnight access to protect R from further harm caused by parental conflict, directions on holidays, travel notice, safekeeping of passports, appointment of a parental coordinator, therapeutic…

  • 17 Mar 2020

    CPS v. WMK

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 65
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2080/2018

    Applying the paramount welfare principle and expert and social welfare evidence, the court retained joint custody but ordered a structured shared‑care timetable to promote the children's relationship with both parents while limiting parental contact at handovers. The mother remains the carer otherwise; the father receives alternate extended weekend stays plus additional weekly overnight/time on specified weeks to build attachment. Sole custody was refused because it would not necessarily secure better access and both parents are judged fit and important to the children. The arrangement must b…

  • 14 Jun 2019

    LACHY v. YC

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 152
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2057/2016

    Although relations between the parents are highly conflicted, they are not so damaged as to make joint custody infeasible; the child's best interests require continued meaningful involvement of both parents, a settled overnight arrangement and shared decision-making, so an order for joint custody with shared care was made with detailed term-time and holiday arrangements, appointment of a parental coordinator and compulsory parenting course attendance for high conflict cases.