Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Access arrangements

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2024

H v. W

Citation

[2024] HKFC 226
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8332/2017

On balance of welfare and evidence the court found it was not in A’s best interests to change care and control to the Father; the Mother's relocation proposal to Singapore was genuine and realistic, supported by reports and A's expressed wishes, and granted subject to a mirror order in Singapore and a court undertaking to return A if required; access and transitional arrangements and specified financial variations were ordered; a Section 18 declaration was pronounced enabling the Mother to apply to make the decree nisi absolute.
6 Dec 2024

J v. Q

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2563/2024

On balance the court concluded that interim care should be granted to the father because the child had spent the majority of his life with the father, a Shanghai court had adjudicated in favour of the father, the mother's removal of the child to Hong Kong was without consent and questionable, there was no independent evidence of psychological harm or risk, and the child's expressed wishes to the judge were likely the product of pressure and therefore given no weight.
1 Aug 2023

ZZ v. LX

Citation

[2023] HKFC 143
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP167/2018

The Mother failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any of her grounds of appeal; on the facts and having regard to SIR recommendations and parental capacities the court concluded joint custody with care and control to the Mother was in the child's best interests; leave to appeal and stay of execution were dismissed and costs were awarded against the Mother in a sum the court found reasonable ($285,000).
24 Feb 2023

TKM also known as WTKM v. WHG

Citation

[2023] HKFC 41
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5723/2021

Shared care was refused and a phased, supervised increase in access was ordered because the Child is 2½ years old, primarily attached to Mother, and experts recommended gradual increases with predictable routines; effective parental communication and the Child's adjustment are prerequisites for any shift to shared or 50:50 care; supervision and a 12-month review are required to monitor adjustment and review arrangements.
14 Sept 2021

劉對唐

Citation

[2021] HKFC 184
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5078/2020

Having applied the best‑interests principle and considered successive social welfare reports and the expressed wishes of the children, the court retained the status quo as being in the children's best interests: father awarded sole care and control of the elder daughter; mother awarded sole care and control of the younger daughter; joint custody was inappropriate given entrenched poor parental communication; access ordered as per the social worker's schedule with supervision by the social welfare investigator for one year.
23 Jun 2021

C v. S

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP929/2017

The Court held that in light of N's welfare and her present relationship with Father, the Father's proposed access regime was unrealistic and consequently ordered the access terms proposed by Mother (paragraphs 3 to 9 of her draft order), required a non-denigration undertaking by Father if not voluntarily given, directed parties to pursue family therapy with AAFT after the appeal is determined and litigation ceased, and made no order as to costs except that Mother's own costs be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
3 Dec 2020

JTMW v. NAV

Citation

[2020] HKFC 244
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

Judge found the father's application genuine and realistic, accepted evidence that relocation offered greater long-term welfare (family support, improved schooling and father's career stability), gave weight to boys' expressed wishes and to Official Solicitor and social worker reports, concluded detriment to mother could be mitigated by continued access and opportunities for extended family contact, and therefore granted leave to relocate as being in the boys' best interests.
25 Feb 2020

YSYM v. LHB

Citation

[2020] HKFC 35
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC19025/2012

The court refused the mother’s application to remove/relocate the children because, viewing the child’s welfare as paramount, the removal plan was not demonstrated to be realistic or secure: inadequate and uncertain childcare and fallback arrangements in Vancouver, the mother’s likely prioritisation of her own desire to leave, material risk that relocation would further damage an already poor father–children relationship given the record of unsatisfactory access, and the mother’s inability to allay concerns about immigration/job contingency; accordingly the SWO recommendation was not adopted…
7 Jan 2020

C v. S

Citation

[2020] HKCA 35
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP223/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the father's proposed directions were unnecessary or potentially obstructive to the treating psychiatrist's ability to devise and implement a treatment plan for the ward; the judge had considered but properly rejected the directions as likely to cause delay and not to assist the ward, and costs were awarded accordingly, with an order preventing a further oral hearing under Order 59, r 2A(8).
21 Jul 2017

ZJ v. XWN

Citation

ZJ v. XWN
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC16899/2014

Relocation granted because the father's application was found genuine and realistic, relocation to Australia best serves the child's welfare given the father is the primary carer and can provide appropriate schooling, housing and support; the detriment of reduced geographic proximity to the mother is mitigated by a detailed, generous access regime, undertakings by the father and the prospect of a mirror Australian order, and therefore the balance of the child's welfare favours removal.