Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Visitation/access

  • 27 Feb 2023

    朱 對 易

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 38
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12673/2019

    Court ordered joint custody for both parents but awarded care and control to the mother because the children expressly preferred to remain with her, she had been the primary caregiver, maintaining status quo was in the children's best interests, and the father's health, gambling debt, threatening conduct and forcible administration of medication undermined his suitability for care and control; reasonable access including overnight stays granted to father.

  • 31 May 2022

    朱 對 何

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 115
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC851/2020

    The court gave significant weight to the child's expressed,ifiable wishes given her age and maturity and to consistent social work findings that the child was flourishing with the father and aunt; there was no credible evidence that the father had harassed the mother or child to justify a return/occupation order under s3, and therefore joint custody with father having care and control and limited monthly day visits for the mother was granted while the return order was dismissed.

  • 1 Nov 2021

    周 對 車

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 217
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC106/2018

    On balance and having accepted the social work and clinical psychologist evidence that the father is better able to manage the child’s behaviour and meet his special needs, and that the alternating weekly care was unsuitable, the court awarded the father sole care and control while retaining joint parental responsibility and granted the mother specified access; prior allegations of abuse did not establish unsuitability because they were investigated and not substantiated.

  • 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.

  • 30 Jun 2016

    鄭 對 葉

    Citation
    鄭 對 葉
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3923/2012

    Having accepted and preferred the independent social work and psychological assessments and having found no reliable evidence of harm by father or helper, the court held that joint custody (both parents participate in major decisions) best serves the child’s interests while care and control should be vested in the father to preserve stability and continuity; detailed access orders were necessary to provide predictable contact for the mother and protect the child’s welfare.

  • 26 Apr 2016

    雷 對 劉

    Citation
    雷 對 劉
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC784/2014

    The court held it has jurisdiction under ss48 and 48A of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance to award custody to a third party and, applying the best interests test, awarded custody of the 5‑year‑old child to the intervener (grandmother) with day‑to‑day care by the aunt; child to be under supervision of the Director of Social Welfare for a preliminary two‑year period; father to have reasonable access subject to agreement or social work coordination because father demonstrated violent tendencies, lack of stable care plan and immigration‑motivated claims making him unsuitable for custody.