Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Parental alienation

  • 9 Jan 2026

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 18
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP310/2023

    The Court refused leave to appeal and declined to admit new evidence because the fresh materials did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall threshold (not shown to have an important influence on the outcome) and the reunification report did not substantially affect basic assumptions at trial; the trial judge's case management decision to determine expert conflict on paper without oral evidence was within his discretion and not plainly wrong, so there were no reasonable prospects of success to justify an appeal or a stay.

  • 9 Jan 2026

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 18
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP309/2023

    Leave to appeal and admission of new evidence were refused: the trial judge's case management decision to determine expert conflict on paper and his factual findings on parental alienation were within discretion and not plainly wrong; the disciplinary reports and reunification expert report did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall or the exercise of discretion under O 59 r 10(2) to warrant admission and would not probably have materially affected the result; no arguable basis for stay of the ADHD Order existed.

  • 24 Feb 2025

    黎 對 凌

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 31
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17193/2014

    Court accepted social welfare and clinical psychologist reports that there was no evidence mother deliberately alienated the child; the child, competent for his age, expressed a settled wish to live with mother; maintaining stability and status quo was in the child's best interests; therefore order varied to joint custody with mother having care and control and a defined contact regime for father, and limited travel permission for mother with safeguards.

  • 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.

  • 13 Dec 2024

    H v. W

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 226
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8332/2017

    On balance of welfare and evidence the court found it was not in A’s best interests to change care and control to the Father; the Mother's relocation proposal to Singapore was genuine and realistic, supported by reports and A's expressed wishes, and granted subject to a mirror order in Singapore and a court undertaking to return A if required; access and transitional arrangements and specified financial variations were ordered; a Section 18 declaration was pronounced enabling the Mother to apply to make the decree nisi absolute.

  • 28 Jul 2023

    KHH v. PKH

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 145
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8332/2017

    On the balance of probabilities, the court found the child was placed once in the walk-in wardrobe and that hair removal occurred during December 2021 (likely by helper), but neither amounted to serious abuse; the allegation of indecent assault was not proven and lacked corroboration; father was found credible and unsupervised access was restored with a specific alternating weekly schedule and directions for counselling and co-parenting therapy.

  • 28 Jun 2023

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 113
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    Sole custody and care and control were retained by the mother because there was no evidence of harm from the mother's care, the children (aged 16 and 14) consistently opposed a change of residence, expert evidence attributed the children's distress to parental conflict rather than maternal alienation, the father failed to demonstrate capacity or realistic arrangements for residence and had conduct (including refusing offered access and coercive behavior) undermining his case; reasonable access in pairs ordered; FSC or compulsory reunification therapy refused because it would be inappropriate…

  • 16 Jan 2023

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 7
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the father failed to show any arguable case with reasonable prospects of success on the grounds advanced; the judge's case management discretion in refusing to appoint the Family Separation Clinic and in directing a government clinical psychologist was exercised lawfully on the facts and did not amount to procedural unfairness or pre-determination; consequently the stay application was also dismissed.

  • 9 Jan 2023

    SG v. GDV

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 15
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10217/2020

    Relocation dismissed because on the holistic welfare balancing exercise the relocation was not in the children’s best interests: the father’s stated financial basis was disbelieved and he can provide for the children in Hong Kong; the relocation was motivated in part to exclude the mother; the mother is unlikely realistically to obtain US residency or reliable access; psychological and social work evidence indicated risk of harm to the children’s relationship with the mother (and to P’s emotional security); and the tangible benefits of relocation did not outweigh the significant risk of sever…

  • 26 Sept 2022

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 204
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    The father failed to demonstrate that the proposed private/foreign expert evidence was necessary or sufficiently relevant to justify displacing government clinical psychological assessment; allowing the appointment would cause undue delay and would not be in the children's best interests, therefore both applications for appointment of the Family Separation Clinic are dismissed.