Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Custody variation

  • 21 Feb 2025

    SSLT v. SMFC

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 35
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11056/2017

    On the evidence the court found no parental alienation by the Father; having regard to the children's welfare, the 2018 consent arrangements had been altered in practice and best interests required varying care and control: joint custody retained but care and control of both children granted to the Father, with defined access to the Mother (specific weekday dinners and alternate weekend access) and equal, mutually agreed holiday sharing; Social Welfare Officer reports considered but the court reached a different conclusion on G based on sibling unity, stability and changed circumstances.

  • 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.

  • 28 May 2020

    C v. S

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 937
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP929/2017

    Although retrospective leave to disclose documents and have the expert involved was granted in principle, the court excluded the expert report: Dr Wong's 2nd Report was held not sufficiently relevant or helpful, relied on old or unadmitted material and documentary diagnosis without recent examination of the child or mother, and admitting it would risk delay, re‑opening adjudicated issues and undermining the imminent trial and the child's ongoing treatment; accordingly the Expert Summons was dismissed and costs ordered against Father.

  • 10 Mar 2020

    FJ v. DTD

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 50
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14138/2012

    Given entrenched high conflict, lack of cooperative communication, professional reports finding sole custody in child's best interests and the child's mature, genuine expressed wishes to remain in Hong Kong with limited and structured access to the father, joint custody was found unworkable and sole custody to the mother was ordered with detailed, limited access for the father in Hong Kong, maintenance of removal restrictions (with narrow school-trip exception) and specific notice and telephone arrangements to protect the child's welfare and stability.

  • 19 Feb 2016

    周 對 仲

    Citation
    周 對 仲
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA334/2013

    The court accepted the independent social welfare and international reports that the two elder boys genuinely and consistently expressed a wish to live with their father and to attend mainstream education; mother’s unilateral, frequent and closed educational placements and refusal to accept the children’s wishes had materially damaged parent-child communication and would likely harm their welfare if custody remained with her. Joint custody was unworkable due to total communication breakdown. Therefore the court varied the 25 September 2013 order: sole custody of the eldest and middle sons to…

  • 25 Sept 2015

    LRY v. LCM nee MCE

    Citation
    LRY v. LCM nee MCE
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14297/2012

    Application dismissed: the court applied the statutory best interests test, gave particular weight to the consistent views of the children and to social investigation reports, found the mother to be the primary, more intimate carer and that the children would be disrupted by uprooting; the father's financial concerns were held insufficient to justify changing custody and should be addressed in maintenance proceedings.

  • 10 Jun 2015

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

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

    Adjournment sine die refused because the Applicant, who initiated the variation proceedings, failed to demonstrate that adjourning the proceedings would enhance prospects of successful co-parenting counselling, had a long history of delays and change of lawyers, and produced medical evidence that was unsupported and of limited weight; however a limited out-of-time filing extension was granted for case management reasons and the court set firm timelines, ordered an updated social welfare report, reserved certain costs and ordered costs of the adjournment summons to be in the cause.

  • 26 Jan 2015

    CWT v. CKK

    Citation
    CWT v. CKK
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14169/2007

    The court found the 2008 undertaking discharged in light of changed circumstances (variation of care and control) but accepted the respondent's new undertaking to continue making payments of not less than HK$8,000 per month for the child's benefit; the mother's applications for periodical maintenance and for an education fund were dismissed for lack of justification and current parental means; costs awarded to respondent against petitioner.

  • 12 Dec 2014

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

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

    The summons to file the three medical reports was dismissed because the reports were obtained and sought to be adduced without prior court permission in breach of PD15.12 and Order 38; they lacked required statements/declarations and their late unilateral production after the court-ordered joint experts' meeting would prejudice the respondent, undermine case management under the CJR and was unnecessary because the joint statement and the nominated experts (Dr Ip and Dr Li) are sufficient for the court to determine severity and need for treatment.

  • 17 Dec 2012

    CLL v. SW

    Citation
    CLL v. SW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10564/2009

    Applying the civil standard (balance of probabilities) and the welfare principle, the court found the alleged sexual and physical abuses were not proved, rejected the court‑appointed psychologist's risk assessment as insufficiently grounded in proven facts and tainted by failure to account for triangulation/coaching, accepted that the mother fabricated or coached the allegations to obtain custody advantage, and dismissed the variation application thereby restoring care and control to the father with supervised handover.