Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of care and control

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2024

RM (aka RH) v. SRM

Citation

[2024] HKFC 189
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7451/2016

Although the mothers application was genuine and her plan realistic, the court refused relocation because L is presently well settled in Hong Kong, doing well at school, and the Social Investigation Officer recommended he remain; Ls wishes were given little weight due to immaturity and fluctuation; the overall welfare balancing showed no net benefit from relocating and potential detriment to the established relationship and stability with the father.
27 Jan 2022

GKLJ v. WE also known as WFYE

Citation

[2022] HKFC 21
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC16521/2015

The application to substantially vary care and control was refused; the court concluded there was no cogent evidence that the current shared-care arrangement was the root cause of the child's academic or behavioural problems, expert and social welfare reports supported maintaining shared care with only a modest adjustment, and the child's best interests require continued substantial, consistent contact with both parents. The court therefore maintained the 2018 shared-care order except to grant the mother care from afterschool to 18:00 on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and ordered support meas…
15 Feb 2019

CAW v. FHFD

Citation

[2019] HKFC 37
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11197/2009

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; the trial judge's findings about preserving the status quo and reviewing the education plan were not mischaracterised so as to warrant leave.
20 Dec 2018

CAW v. FHFD

Citation

[2018] HKFC 239
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11197/2009

The District Court has jurisdiction under MPPO s19(1) and MCR r94(1) to hear relocation applications; CACO s21 is preventative and does not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction. On the merits the mother's relocation application, though genuine, was not shown to be sufficiently practical or in the child's best interests because of weaknesses in schooling options, likely adverse impact on the father–son relationship and Chinese language acquisition. Preserving the child's status quo in Hong Kong for two years best served the child's welfare. Consequently both the mother's relocation summo…
23 Mar 2018

GKLJ v. WE (formerly known as WFYE)

Citation

[2018] HKCA 179
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP19/2018

The Court refused to advance the renewed leave application because the appeal would probably be rendered academic by the imminent substantive hearing and parties should focus on the substantive application; the leave application was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore after the substantive determination, while observations were made about the breadth of the continued injunction which may be inconsistent with access rights.
29 Jan 2018

李對甘

Citation

[2018] HKFC 11
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10730/2013

Applicant’s case to vary care and control was refused because she failed to establish sufficient objective change or other proper grounds to displace the prior order; the latest SWD report supported father remaining primary carer, the child’s strong ties with father and resident adult sibling and practical caregiving realities (mother’s full‑time work, father available in Shenzhen) made continuity and welfare best served by maintaining father as primary carer while granting mother defined contact; SWD monitoring and parental education were ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

RM (aka RH) v. SRM

GKLJ v. WE also known as WFYE

CAW v. FHFD

CAW v. FHFD

GKLJ v. WE (formerly known as WFYE)

李 對 甘

李對甘