Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Variation of access

  • 8 Dec 2022

    LPYY v. FWHF

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 271
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP89/2016

    On the evidence the child E exhibits extreme, repeated hysterical reactions to physical contact with the Father; multiple credible professional reports and oral evidence recommended against increasing access and instead recommended therapeutic intervention. The Father's unwillingness to accept professional guidance and attempts to force contact risked substantial harm to E. Accordingly, in the child's best interests physical access was suspended pending therapeutic progress, with limited supervised remote contact, and mandatory therapy and parenting work ordered prior to any resumption of acc…

  • 10 Aug 2018

    E v. F

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 130
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6134/2017

    The fathers applications were dismissed because the expert and social investigation evidence established that the children are fragile, resist contact with the father, and that the fathers personality traits and parenting style have materially contributed to the breakdown; varying to unsupervised access or permitting removal would not be in the childrens best interests and forcing contact would cause further harm; therefore interim arrangements favour continuing supervised contact and care with the mother.

  • 12 Dec 2017

    STY v. LMSC

    Citation
    STY v. LMSC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5382/2015

    The Childrens Order should be maintained and the mother's variation dismissed because the parties had extensively agreed the arrangement, the mother failed to show a change of circumstances warranting variation, and it is in the childrens best interests to maintain shared access so they continue to have meaningful contact with both parents during festivals.

  • 30 Sept 2016

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

    Citation
    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP67/2010

    Both summonses were dismissed because resumption of the 13/3/2014 defined interim access was not shown to be in the child's best interests given changed circumstances and lack of evidence that the historical schedule fits the child's current needs; long term general access must be pursued through proper application within a fixed time or, failing that, reasonable access with removal restrictions will be ordered.