Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Child welfare

Legal area

Court

26 May 2025

YCR also known as CRY v. YSJ nee SJE

Citation

[2025] HKFC 96
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2423/2018

Relocation was permitted because on the balance of probabilities the mother's application was genuine and realistic, and permitting relocation better served the paramount welfare of the children—most critically the elder child’s diagnosed learning disabilities for which evidence (psychoeducational report and corroborating materials) showed a materially greater and more sustainable level of support and options in Kelowna; detriment to the father was mitigated by generous access provisions, remote contact, a parenting coordinator and a shared cost order for one annual trip.
25 Feb 2025

LIU KAIBANG, a minor, by his next friend and mother LIU LIJUAN v. LAI JOSEPH TAK

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP44/2023

The court ordered all three DNA tests (uncle, paternity by exhumation, and sibling control) because they are useful and together provide the best available scientific evidence to determine parentage; exhumation is permitted as a last resort but justified here given a substantial chance of obtaining usable DNA and the utility of a sibling control; the defendant may refuse to give samples but the court may draw inferences from refusal; late affirmation evidence admitted de bene esse; costs of the summons to be in the cause of the preliminary issue.
14 Oct 2024

RM (aka RH) v. SRM

Citation

[2024] HKFC 189
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7451/2016

Although the mothers application was genuine and her plan realistic, the court refused relocation because L is presently well settled in Hong Kong, doing well at school, and the Social Investigation Officer recommended he remain; Ls wishes were given little weight due to immaturity and fluctuation; the overall welfare balancing showed no net benefit from relocating and potential detriment to the established relationship and stability with the father.
11 Nov 2022

Z, G v. PZ, N nee P, N

Citation

[2022] HKFC 234
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3712/2016

The 2019 Consent Order was afforded heavy weight; there was no material change of circumstances justifying the Fathers proposed downward variation; the Father has sufficient financial resources (including pension and realizable value of LP Property) and cannot rely on self-inflicted financial difficulties arising from his voluntary property purchase; Fathers downward variation was dismissed and Mother was awarded interest on sums she paid which the Father conceded.
15 Feb 2022

M D, MP v. M, MGA

Citation

[2022] HKFC 33
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC751/2018

The court refused the s18 declaration and the application to abridge time for Decree Absolute because there were no satisfactory arrangements or formal undertakings for the children's welfare, the Respondent's stated reasons (to marry and legitimize a new child) did not justify granting a s18(1)(c) declaration, there was a real risk of financial prejudice to the Petitioner and the children (including dissipation and loss of enforcement/inheritance remedies), and jurisdictional uncertainties over enforcement of ancillary relief supported withholding a Decree Absolute; accordingly the Responden…
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.
28 Jul 2021

BL v. SJY

Citation

[2021] HKFC 148
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7831/2008

Judge accepted mother’s plan as genuine and realistic, gave substantial weight to child’s clear and reasoned wishes, the mother’s role as primary carer, the educational advantages and practicability of relocating to the US, and the significant financial and welfare risks of requiring mother and child to remain in Hong Kong; father’s opposition was not sufficient to outweigh the child’s best interests, hence leave to remove was granted.
24 Sept 2019

楊對葉

Citation

[2019] HKFC 251
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6730/2014

Applicant failed to prove a material and unforeseeable deterioration in his financial position; the court accepted that applicant could access rental proceeds and had a monthly income of at least HK$46,000; therefore it would be unjust to discharge undertakings or vary the consent order; the application to change the consent order is dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
19 Sept 2019

JKH v. AH also known as A C-LL

Citation

[2019] HKFC 249
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3529/2018

Applying the paramountcy principle, expert evidence that the child showed signs of stress/trauma and the need to reduce frequent shuttling, the court ordered a move to longer, more structured tranches of time with one parent: alternate extended weekends (Thursday 4:00pm to Sunday 6:00pm) plus an additional overnight on alternate non‑weekend weeks (Thursday 4:00pm to Friday morning) while retaining some weekday access; appointed a parental coordinator with a limited enforcement remit (not monthly roster negotiation); and ordered individual therapy for both parents and the child because these m…