29 Jan 2018
李 對 甘
- Citation
- [2018] HKFC 11
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC10730/2013
Applicant’s case to vary care and control was refused because she failed to establish sufficient objective change or other proper grounds to displace the prior order; the latest SWD report supported father remaining primary carer, the child’s strong ties with father and resident adult sibling and practical caregiving realities (mother’s full‑time work, father available in Shenzhen) made continuity and welfare best served by maintaining father as primary carer while granting mother defined contact; SWD monitoring and parental education were ordered.