Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Weight of child's wishes

  • 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.

  • 22 Jul 2020

    YSYM v. LHB

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 586
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP24/2020

    The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge materially erred by failing to give real effect to the children’s clear wishes, by treating an application for removal for education as a permanent relocation requiring unrealistic safeguards (notably visa/permanent residency), by improperly discounting the SWO’s recommendation without cogent reasons, and by making contradictory findings; those errors rendered the exercise of discretion plainly wrong and justified rehearing the discretion and granting leave to remove the children to Vancouver for education with detailed access provisions.

  • 19 Feb 2016

    周 對 仲

    Citation
    周 對 仲
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA334/2013

    The court accepted the independent social welfare and international reports that the two elder boys genuinely and consistently expressed a wish to live with their father and to attend mainstream education; mother’s unilateral, frequent and closed educational placements and refusal to accept the children’s wishes had materially damaged parent-child communication and would likely harm their welfare if custody remained with her. Joint custody was unworkable due to total communication breakdown. Therefore the court varied the 25 September 2013 order: sole custody of the eldest and middle sons to…

  • 15 Jun 1988

    C v. C

    Citation
    C v. C
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV44/1988

    The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal because the trial judge, having contemplated removing a 14‑year‑old from his father and awarding custody to the mother in a contested custody dispute, should have interviewed and heard the parents and placed proper weight on the child's stated wishes; absent sufficient material justifying transfer, the child's welfare required he remain with his father, so the custody order was set aside and custody awarded to the father with access to the mother.

  • 2 May 1986

    P v. P

    Citation
    P v. P
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV39/1986

    The trial judge did not misapply his discretion: given the child's maturity, the genuine and compelling risk of upset from enforced reconciliation, and the limited prospect of successful reconciliation, the denial of access was justified; the Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.

  • 31 Jul 1971

    RE Y & Y (INFANTS)

    Citation
    RE Y & Y (INFANTS)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP143/1971

    Custody remains with the mother because on balance the children's welfare is best served by staying with her: there is no proven ill-treatment, the children have lived with her continuously, the children's expressed wishes carry little weight given their ages and characters, the father's status and claims (including concubinage) were not established sufficiently, and there was no cogent reason to separate the siblings; accordingly the father's application for custody is dismissed.