Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Social welfare report

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2026

黃對張

Citation

[2026] HKFC 20
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA1178/2022

Maintaining the children's existing stable arrangement in Hong Kong best serves their welfare: joint custody is appropriate; father is the more suitable person for day-to-day care and control because he is the established primary carer, provides stability for schooling and daily needs, and there is no proven risk of harm; mother is granted reasonable contact; travel to Mainland for visits is permitted given historical practice and absence of objection from father.
21 Feb 2025

SSLT v. SMFC

Citation

[2025] HKFC 35
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11056/2017

On the evidence the court found no parental alienation by the Father; having regard to the children's welfare, the 2018 consent arrangements had been altered in practice and best interests required varying care and control: joint custody retained but care and control of both children granted to the Father, with defined access to the Mother (specific weekday dinners and alternate weekend access) and equal, mutually agreed holiday sharing; Social Welfare Officer reports considered but the court reached a different conclusion on G based on sibling unity, stability and changed circumstances.
6 Apr 2022

ZFY v. SCHC

Citation

[2022] HKFC 73
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP97/2020

The applicant for leave (father) failed to demonstrate any arguable case with reasonable prospects of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the trial judge's findings on the welfare checklist, the treatment of the SWO's SIR and the ISIR, and factual credibility findings were matters of fact and within judicial discretion, not errors of law; the court is not obliged to step into the role of advocate to question witnesses to remedy report deficiencies; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed and the interim stay set aside, leaving the Relocation Decision in force.
21 Jan 2022

楊對姚

Citation

[2022] HKFC 20
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13440/2018

The court accepted the social welfare investigation reports which recommended maintaining the status quo because the two children had adapted to living with the father, their welfare (including expressed wishes) and current stability favoured continuation of father’s care pending trial; accordingly the father was granted interim care and control and the mother interim defined access as detailed, and no costs order was made.
29 Jun 2021

HWY v. LCS

Citation

[2021] HKFC 126
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP201/2018

The court ordered joint custody with care and control to the mother because the mother is the established primary carer, the children expressed a wish to remain with her, the Social Investigation Report supported care to the mother, the father had prolonged periods of minimal contact and paid inadequate maintenance until compelled by court orders, the father’s housing and proposed arrangements were impractical for long‑term care and the allegations of the mother’s misconduct were not proven. Those findings made awarding care and control to the mother demonstrably in the children's best intere…
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.
14 Oct 2020

FYMB v. CCH

Citation

[2020] HKFC 210
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9300/2012

Applying the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance and the Payne guidance, the court found the Mother's relocation plan genuine and realistic, the Father's opposition genuine but the detriment finely balanced, and the Social Welfare Officer’s reports and the child's expressed mature wish decisive. It was therefore in the child's best interests to permit permanent relocation to Canada with the Mother as sole carer, subject to ordered access arrangements and financial provision; relocation deferred until no earlier than 28 December 2020 to minimize disruption and allow immigration processing.
15 May 2019

黃對林

Citation

[2019] HKFC 122
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11878/2016

Sole care and control was awarded to the father because maintaining the child's established routine, primary day-to-day caregiving by the father, and the child's clear and consistent wish to live with the father best served the child's welfare; nevertheless the mother was granted defined and enhanced contact including a regular weekly/three-week rotation schedule and equal sharing of long school holidays with procedural rules on selection and notification; the father must provide access to school information and cannot unilaterally exclude the mother from participation in the child's upbringi…
11 Apr 2019

池對王

Citation

[2019] HKFC 95
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15650/2016

The court found that maintaining the existing shared care arrangement best serves the child's welfare: both parents love and adequately care for the child, the social welfare report and the child's clear preference supported continuation, and the current division of weekday maternal care and weekend paternal care provides the optimal balance of routine and paternal engagement. Therefore joint care and control was ordered.
16 Apr 2018

JRMW v. NAV

Citation

[2018] HKFC 51
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

The relocation application was dismissed because although the father's stated aims and some practical elements were credible, the core childcare plan depended on an asserted intimate relationship between the father and V which the court found fabricated; that undermined the realism of the plan, created real immigration and caregiving risks, and therefore the relocation would be incompatible with the children's welfare and best interests; costs were ordered against the father for reprehensible litigation conduct.