Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Welfare of the child

  • 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…

  • 21 Feb 2025

    SSLT v. SMFC

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 35
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11056/2017

    On the evidence the court found no parental alienation by the Father; having regard to the children's welfare, the 2018 consent arrangements had been altered in practice and best interests required varying care and control: joint custody retained but care and control of both children granted to the Father, with defined access to the Mother (specific weekday dinners and alternate weekend access) and equal, mutually agreed holiday sharing; Social Welfare Officer reports considered but the court reached a different conclusion on G based on sibling unity, stability and changed circumstances.

  • 20 Feb 2025

    J v. Q AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 632
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2563/2024

    On the facts and contemporaneous communications the court found the child had not lost habitual residence in Shanghai by 3 August 2024; the mother’s Hague application was dismissed for lack of habitual residence in Japan (alternatively, consent would have succeeded); in wardship the child’s welfare required prompt return to Shanghai with detailed protective measures and supervised transition, return ordered by 25 February 2025.

  • 1 Aug 2024

    HKW v. YYC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 144
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3123/2021

    A 13-day delay was short and satisfactorily explained; no real prejudice would result; the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge had considered the allegations and the two SIRs, provided adequate reasons for his welfare-based conclusions favouring the petitioner as primary carer, and had protective measures for access; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and costs follow the event.

  • 14 May 2024

    林 對 蔡

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 102
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP248/2021

    Court accepted applicant's budgetary items but apportioned general household costs half to the child, accepted child's personal costs and reasonable extra activities, yielding a monthly need of HKD9,607; because respondent failed to disclose finances in breach of court orders the court imputed an ability to pay (supported by respondent's own statement of monthly casual earnings HKD18,900) and ordered respondent to pay HKD9,607 per month into applicant's CSSA bank account from 1 June 2024 until the child is 18 or ceases full‑time education, together with costs to the applicant.

  • 9 Apr 2024

    黄 對 陈

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 311
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP348/2023

    Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the impugned order was a case‑management measure to secure the child's return so welfare inquiries and custody determinations could follow, and the fresh evidence either did not meet Ladd v Marshall/EBS v NTCD thresholds or was irrelevant to the narrow return order.

  • 2 Apr 2024

    黎 對 凌

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 63
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17193/2014

    The judge correctly applied s63A Cap.336 and concluded the father had no reasonable prospect of success nor other reasons of fairness to justify permission to appeal because the mother had re-established the child's life in Hong Kong with social services' involvement, the child attended school locally, the abduction risk was low, and available cross-border enforcement reduced the need to refuse short travel; accordingly the father's permission-to-appeal application was dismissed and costs awarded to the mother.

  • 31 Aug 2023

    SKA v. TI

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 176
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3496/2018

    Leave to permanently remove the two children to England was granted because, on the holistic welfare assessment, the relocation is in the children's best interests: both children expressed a clear, informed and consistent wish to live with their father; the father is the primary carer with a strong bond to the children; independent SIRs and a detailed ISIR confirmed feasibility (accommodation, schooling, family support and medical access); the father's plan was realistic and well prepared; the mother's objections were speculative or unsupported by evidence and did not outweigh the welfare fac…

  • 12 Jul 2023

    AA v. WSC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 129
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3096/2020

    The court awarded sole care and control to the Mother because maintaining the status quo best served the children's welfare: the older children's clear wishes to live with Mother, the Father's unilateral revelation of the half-brother contrary to expert advice and court direction, the Father's deliberate non-disclosure of cohabitation with Madam Li and MC that deprived the SWO of material information, evasive evidence from the Father, his absence during access, and his failure to provide clear, safe and workable proposals for where the children would reside when with him meant shared care wou…

  • 12 Jul 2023

    I, M aka K, M v. I, SM

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 136
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10984/2020

    Exceptional circumstances existed: the respondent adopted an unreasonable and unsustainable financial stance, changed position after trial, and the petitioner has suffered significant depletion of capital risking the children's welfare; accordingly it is justifiable to depart from the usual 'no costs' rule and order the respondent to pay a substantial proportion of costs (75% of relocation costs and 50% of the variation application costs).