Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Child relocation

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2023

SKA v. TI

Citation

[2023] HKFC 176
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3496/2018

Leave to permanently remove the two children to England was granted because, on the holistic welfare assessment, the relocation is in the children's best interests: both children expressed a clear, informed and consistent wish to live with their father; the father is the primary carer with a strong bond to the children; independent SIRs and a detailed ISIR confirmed feasibility (accommodation, schooling, family support and medical access); the father's plan was realistic and well prepared; the mother's objections were speculative or unsupported by evidence and did not outweigh the welfare fac…
31 Mar 2023

I, M aka K, M v. I, SM

Citation

[2023] HKFC 66
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10984/2020

Relocation was permitted because the court found the application genuine and realistic, the daughters (approaching 13 and 11) validly wished to relocate, the move would remove the children from an environment associated with trauma, the maternal family can provide tangible support and schooling options are appropriate, the financial position in Hong Kong was unsustainable and the detriment to the father-daughter relationship was not sufficiently grave to outweigh the childrens welfare. The court ordered relocation in summer 2023 rather than deferring to experts proposals for 2024 because de…
31 Aug 2022

CKFG v. WHHK

Citation

[2022] HKFC 183
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9093/2018

Relocation dismissed because it was not in the children's best interests: the mother's plan was inadequately researched and inconsistent, financially unrealistic and insufficiently documented, she failed to consult the father or make detailed arrangements for schooling and accommodation, and the social worker's report and the limited weight to uninformed wishes of the children supported refusal.
30 Mar 2022

DH v. EMG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 57
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7076/2018

On a holistic assessment the child’s expressed wish to relocate, the genuineness and feasibility of Father’s relocation plan supported by Social Welfare and international reports, available family support and schooling in Germany, and adequate proposed undertakings to preserve maternal contact outweighed Mother’s concerns; therefore relocation with Father is in the child’s best interests and custody remains with Father.
30 Nov 2021

BKGGB also known as NGGB v. BKND

Citation

[2021] HKFC 243
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1410/2019

Having considered the volume and disproportionality of costs, disparity in financial means, documented instances of respondent's delaying tactics, inconsistent positions on relocation, failure to meaningfully challenge the relocation plan at trial, and the respondent's alleged fabrication of a court order (unaddressed by him), the court found exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the usual practice; varied the costs order nisi so respondent contributes 25% of petitioner's costs of and arising out of the relocation application (and related applications), with certificate for coun…
29 Mar 2021

JTMW v. NAV

Citation

[2021] HKFC 65
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

The mother's application for leave to appeal was dismissed because she failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice: she did not identify any palpable error of fact or law, offered no admissible fresh evidence that would affect the holistic welfare balancing previously undertaken, and therefore leave under s63A(2) DCO was not justified.
8 Apr 2020

YSYM v. LHB

Citation

[2020] HKFC 83
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC19025/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the mother’s grounds did not show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) DCO and the Re W tests: the judge properly exercised discretion having regard to the children’s welfare, the impracticality and uncertainty of the mother’s relocation plan (notably visa and accommodation issues), and legitimate reasons for departing from the social investigation officer’s recommendation.
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…
20 May 2015

CYP v. LC

Citation

CYP v. LC
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3744/2014

Leave to relocate the two children to Singapore was granted because on the balance of probabilities the mother was the primary carer, her relocation plan was genuine and realistic, the maternal extended family in Singapore provided superior and reliable practical support, and any detriment to the father's relationship could be mitigated by generous and structured access; therefore custody was ordered jointly, care and control to mother, and specified access to father.
26 Sept 2014

EMD v. MAM

Citation

EMD v. MAM
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP184/2014

Although the unilateral removal to Hong Kong was undesirable and not generally in children's best interests, the respondent had not engaged with the proceedings and her whereabouts and intentions were unknown. To avoid leaving the children in an untenable position pending any return or further application, the court exercised its discretion to grant interim joint custody with interim care and control to the Applicant, without prejudice to any application the Respondent may make for return of the children, and subject to interim access for the Respondent.