Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Special educational needs

  • 26 May 2025

    YCR also known as CRY v. YSJ nee SJE

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 96
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2423/2018

    Relocation was permitted because on the balance of probabilities the mother's application was genuine and realistic, and permitting relocation better served the paramount welfare of the children—most critically the elder child’s diagnosed learning disabilities for which evidence (psychoeducational report and corroborating materials) showed a materially greater and more sustainable level of support and options in Kelowna; detriment to the father was mitigated by generous access provisions, remote contact, a parenting coordinator and a shared cost order for one annual trip.

  • 28 Feb 2025

    IB v. MCR

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 42
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10128/2017

    Grant leave for the child to relocate to Zurich because, after a holistic welfare balancing exercise with the child's best interests paramount, the mother is the child's primary and sole carer, is better placed to support the child's diagnosed learning difficulties and emotional needs during daily life and school adjustment; the proposed Zurich school environment (IM) and smaller class setting better fit the child's needs; the child's expressed preference for Zurich is given due weight; the father's proposed schools in Los Angeles are likely to be overwhelming and his capacity as sole daily c…

  • 14 Aug 2024

    MJCK v. LGLC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 154
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14170/2023

    On balance YCIS best promotes the Child's welfare for 2024/2025 because it provides a mid-point location with school‑bus access to the mother's home (reducing burdensome commute), offers OPRS to address the Child's speech and motor delays, provides Cantonese instruction facilitating family communication, and offers greater likely long‑term stability than Montessori options which the Child would likely need to leave later.

  • 2 May 2018

    PJM v. GPN

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 65
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4999/2014

    Applying the paramount welfare principle and on the evidence (including Social Welfare Officer recommendation and specialist reports), the court found both parents loving and capable but conflicted; there was insufficient basis to vary the existing week on/week off shared care during term time. The fathers criticisms did not justify transfer of ultimate care; instead directions to manage medical communications and appointment of a parental co-ordinator were required to protect the childrens interests.