Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Psychological assessment
  • 9 Jan 2026

    RE PRABHDEEP SINGH

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 8
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV270/2025

    The judge did not commit error of law or procedural unfairness in refusing leave; the applicant failed to demonstrate that lack of counsel or English proficiency rendered the process unfair, the refusal of psychological assessment was adequately addressed, and the Board's factual findings as to inconsistencies and internal relocation were open on the evidence; therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 13 Sept 2024

    陳 對 姚

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 168
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1339/2017

    Leave to appeal was refused because the father had no reasonable prospect of success: the court had no jurisdiction in this leave application to remove mother's custody; there was no evidence supporting the father's allegations of intimidation; the social welfare and psychological reports supported the impugned order and explicitly recommended no visitation compensation; the father's unexplained absence from the 22 March hearing meant he was taken to have waived opposition to the social welfare report.

  • 29 Dec 2020

    CS v. WCT

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 276
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5660/2020

    Joint custody with equal shared care and control on a seven-to-seven bi-weekly basis is in the children's best interests; the court accepted the Social Welfare Officer's and Clinical Psychologist's recommendations, found the interim parallel parenting arrangement was working, and concluded that sole custody would create imbalance and likely increase parental conflict to the detriment of the children.

  • 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…

  • 16 Aug 2019

    羅 對 肖

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 211
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC940/2017

    The court awarded sole custody, care and control to the mother because independent social work and clinical psychology reports found the child is well-settled, has a close positive relationship with the mother, expresses a clear and stable wish to remain with her, and the parents cannot cooperate; supervised defined access for the father was ordered on a gradual basis and a 9-month supervision order plus psychological services were required to safeguard the child's welfare.

  • 31 Aug 2018

    梁 對 陳

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 145
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12162/2015

    Given the child's age (6), established primary care by the mother, the lack of mutual trust between parents, the absence of evidence that mother’s concerns are well-founded to the point of precluding supervised contact, and the social worker's detailed, impartial recommendation, the court concluded the child's best interests are served by joint legal custody with the mother having care and control, supervised daytime non‑overnight contact for the father of three hours weekly with a third party present, social welfare monitoring for 12 months, and a prohibition on taking the child out of juris…

  • 8 Aug 2018

    R, MJ v. OAM, also known as R, AO

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 131
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4362/2016

    Sole custody and care and control were granted to the mother because, applying the paramount welfare principle, the mother best meets the child's emotional needs and the father's pattern of volatile, bullying behaviour posed a real risk of psychological harm; joint custody was infeasible due to entrenched parental conflict and inability to cooperate; the court retained power to order boarding school or small group home placement and expressly allowed the mother to pursue those options without the father's consent to protect the child's best interests.

  • 21 Nov 2017

    LACHY v. YC

    Citation
    LACHY v. YC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2057/2016

    The mother failed to produce compelling, cogent evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that Ms. N sexually abused or behaved inappropriately towards the child; the observed conduct was more plausibly explained as normal exploratory behaviour of a young child and the allegations amounted to conjecture; accordingly Ms. N is exonerated, the father's undertaking is discharged, and the mother is ordered to pay costs on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.

  • 28 Apr 2017

    N v. W

    Citation
    N v. W
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5026/2015

    Given the children's clear, consistent wish to split time equally, the supporting recommendations from the child psychologist and one social welfare officer, and the view that both parents are capable of meeting the children’s needs despite high conflict, the court made an interim order for joint custody to be reviewed in 18 months and ordered shared care on a 2/2/5/5 rota with school holidays split 50:50, subject to specified holiday allocations and implementation of expert recommendations (including assessment for C).

  • 16 Oct 2015

    BDL v. CMS

    Citation
    BDL v. CMS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9446/2014

    Given the child's welfare as paramount, her attachment to both parents, the high conflict between parties and expert/social work advice, the court ordered a phased increase in access: extended daytime consecutive access over specified school breaks, commencement of supervised/structured weekday access, and introduction of alternate weekly overnight staying access from February 2016 subject to updated psychological reports for the child and psychological/psychiatric reports from each parent.