Read the full judgment text of HCMP 3584/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 April 2017 before Hon Cheung and Chu JJA.
Family law – Child custody – Shared care and control – Leave to appeal – Best interests of children – New evidence – Costs – Appeal against Deputy District Judge’s decision – Court of Appeal refuses leave to appeal – Judge’s discretion not wrongly exercised – Best interest of children is paramount principle – Recommendation of experts not binding – New evidence application no order made – No order as to costs – The case concerns a dispute over the daily care and control of three children following the divorce of their parents – The mother and father are medical practitioners who separated in 2009 and divorced in 2011 – Previous consent orders regulated access, but a 2014 trial resulted in a judgment granting shared care and control while rejecting a week-on/week-off arrangement – The father applied for leave to appeal the Deputy District Judge’s decision made on 9 March 2016 – The petitioner mother sought leave to adduce new evidence – The Court of Appeal directed the applications be dealt with on paper based on written submissions – The Court held that the one and only principle in decision concerning children is whether it is made in the best interest of the children – The Court was not convinced that it is reasonably arguable that the decision below is not in the best interest of the children – The Judge had properly considered the recommendations, rejected them and gave reasons for her decision – The status of a recommendation by the experts should not be raised to the status of a decision which should only be interfered with on grounds similar to an appellate Court interfering with an exercise of discretion – The Judge’s view that the change will be too radical and extensive a change for the youngest child AS cannot be plainly wrong – The argument that the Judge should separately seek the view of AS is not grounded by the reality of the situation – The new arrangement ordered by the Judge in fact gave the father less time with the children and in effect reduced the father to a weekend father – The Court will not grant leave – The mother has sought to rely on the progress report made after the Judge’s order – The stricture relating to admission of new evidence on appeal must subject to the overriding principle that in children cases the aim is to achieve a result that is to the best interest of the children – The Court will make no order as to costs in view of the nature of the application
Legal issues: Leave to appeal against custody order · Admission of new evidence · Costs
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused. Application for new evidence dismissed. No order as to costs.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case