Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Welfare principle

  • 30 Apr 2021

    LCH v. JMC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 88
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP179/2019

    The court refused the mother's application to relocate the child to Toronto because the relocation would significantly undermine the child's relationship with her father and was not in the child's best interests on a welfare analysis; the court therefore ordered joint custody and shared care with a specific access regime for the father (two blocks of four consecutive days overnight per month plus six further day accesses per month, totalling 14 days monthly), school holidays to be split equally, and no order as to costs nisi to be absolute in 14 days.

  • 15 May 2019

    黃 對 林

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 122
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11878/2016

    Sole care and control was awarded to the father because maintaining the child's established routine, primary day-to-day caregiving by the father, and the child's clear and consistent wish to live with the father best served the child's welfare; nevertheless the mother was granted defined and enhanced contact including a regular weekly/three-week rotation schedule and equal sharing of long school holidays with procedural rules on selection and notification; the father must provide access to school information and cannot unilaterally exclude the mother from participation in the child's upbringi…

  • 12 Feb 2018

    GKLJ v. WE also known as WFYE

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 19
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16521/2015

    The court exercised its discretion and found the Father had established a real risk to the child’s physical and psychological wellbeing warranting continuation of the injunction and temporary care and control pending trial; the Mother lacked a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal under s63A(2); fresh evidence was admitted in the child’s welfare interest; access supervision was relaxed based on updated welfare information but core interim protective orders remain in place.

  • 18 Aug 2017

    GCOL nee W v. IHL

    Citation
    GCOL nee W v. IHL
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10850/2006

    Applying the Payne discipline and weighing the paramount welfare of C, the court found the mother's application genuine and realistic, accepted Social Welfare and clinical psychologist assessments that relocation with safeguards would better C's overall welfare, and concluded that relocation to Cyprus at end of August 2017 was in C's best interests. Supervised access must continue for two years (review when C is 14) conducted by a professional nanny agency in Hong Kong or Cyprus unless parties agree a suitable third party. Steps to obtain a mirror order in Cyprus should be taken with costs sp…

  • 9 Mar 2016

    JDYS v. EYCK also known as KEYC

    Citation
    JDYS v. EYCK also known as KEYC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12871/2009

    Court accepted the childrens' ascertainable wishes to see their father more and accepted the SWO and SJE that shared care was feasible but found a full week-on/week-off regime too radical for the youngest child and would not meet the father's concerns about weekday involvement. Balancing welfare checklist factors and parental capacities, the court varied care and control to a structured shared arrangement: children to stay with father from Thursday after school until Saturday 8:30pm during term, with detailed safeguards (fixed daily contact window, consultation rules for ECAs, online calendar…

  • 24 Sept 2015

    LWYG v. IT

    Citation
    LWYG v. IT
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP276/2013

    Applying the paramount welfare principle, the court varied the parties' consent order to grant joint custody with care and control to the mother while prescribing a detailed, practicable alternating timetable for holidays, birthdays, single public holidays and parental day weekends to ensure the child maintains relationships with both parents; the court also restrained removal from Hong Kong without leave and required a progress report in nine months.

  • 8 May 2012

    RK v. YS

    Citation
    RK v. YS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP151/2008

    The District Court held that the father did not prove sufficient post-appeal evidence of active alienation or other changes outweighing the welfare interests of the children if the status quo were maintained; given AK's strong attachment to the mother, the risk of adverse effect from changing care and control and the social worker and expert evidence taken together, it was in the children's best interests to maintain the Court of Appeal joint custody order and dismiss the variation summonses.

  • 9 Jun 2010

    PD v. KWW

    Citation
    PD v. KWW
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV188/2009

    Given the paramountcy of the child's welfare, the judge properly exercised discretion in ordering joint custody because both parents demonstrated ability and willingness to be involved, there was evidence of the child's desire to maintain a close bond with her father, and there was no evidence that cooperation on matters of consequence was destroyed; care and control was vested in the mother because shared physical custody would be a disruptive change; staying overnight access was removed because overnight stays would aggravate the child's anxiety, and access terms were varied accordingly.

  • 10 Sept 2007

    S v. Z

    Citation
    S v. Z
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14535/2005

    Sole custody awarded to the father because the paramount consideration (children's welfare) requires maintenance of the effective status quo, parents lack reasonable prospect of cooperation for joint custody, the mother has a documented pattern of harassment and instability with risk of recurrence, the children expressed preference for certainty and the father can provide structured daily care; care and control is shared in practice by whoever has physical care at the time; arrangements to be supervised by Social Welfare for 12 months and mother to receive funded therapy.

  • 14 Jun 2006

    CLFM v. DWR

    Citation
    CLFM v. DWR
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10658/1997

    Leave to remove the children to Dubai was granted because the mother was found to be the primary carer, her application was genuine and realistic, the independent social welfare reports and the children’s expressed and reasoned preferences supported removal, and overall the children’s welfare (paramount consideration) favoured removal while maintaining joint custody and reasonable access for the father.