Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Illegitimacy

  • 12 Oct 2017

    C v. S

    Citation
    C v. S
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP929/2017

    The father satisfied the Re H factors (commitment, attachment and legitimate reasons); there was no cogent evidence that granting him all rights would adversely affect the child's welfare; therefore, in the child's best interests the court exercised its discretion under s3(1)(d) GMO to grant the father all the rights and authority he would have if the child were legitimate; costs were awarded against the mother for unreasonable opposition.

  • 9 Oct 2012

    H v. N

    Citation
    H v. N
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP129/2011

    Although both parents were responsible and capable, the mother offered a superior living environment and child care arrangement, the social welfare report recommended the mother, and child A expressed a wish to live with her; accordingly, varying interim care and control to the mother and granting the father defined weekly staying access was in the children’s best interests under s3(1) GMO.

  • 3 Apr 1980

    LIP LAI-MING v. LAI SIU-HUNG

    Citation
    LIP LAI-MING v. LAI SIU-HUNG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP401/1979

    Applying s.10(1) of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance and weighing welfare, conduct and wishes, the court awarded custody to the applicant because overall welfare favoured maternal care: the maternal grandmother was a more suitable surrogate parent, accommodation was slightly better, and these considerations outweighed respondent's recovery and claims to custody.

  • 31 Jul 1971

    RE Y & Y (INFANTS)

    Citation
    RE Y & Y (INFANTS)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP143/1971

    Custody remains with the mother because on balance the children's welfare is best served by staying with her: there is no proven ill-treatment, the children have lived with her continuously, the children's expressed wishes carry little weight given their ages and characters, the father's status and claims (including concubinage) were not established sufficiently, and there was no cogent reason to separate the siblings; accordingly the father's application for custody is dismissed.