Read the full judgment text of FCMC 3123/2021 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 9 January 2024 before His Honour Judge S. Lo.
Matrimonial causes – custody and care and control of child – best interests of child paramount – Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap. 13) s.3(1)(a) – whether sole care and control to mother or father – mother’s stable working schedule and primary carer role – father’s shift work schedule – access arrangements – defined access including day and staying access during holidays – supervision order – parenting co-ordinator appointment – costs – no order as to costs regarding children matters – M’s conduct not exceptional enough for costs order. The court considered the welfare of the child Cazzie as the first and paramount consideration. The petitioner M was found to have a stable working schedule allowing flexible time for care, while the respondent F had an 8-day shift work schedule requiring reliance on others. The court rejected F’s proposal for sole care and control or shared care, accepting the Social Welfare Officer’s recommendations for joint custody and sole care and control to M. Defined access was ordered for F including day access on Wednesdays, alternate Saturdays and Sundays, and staying access during holidays with supervision. A supervision order for 12 months and appointment of a parenting co-ordinator were made to monitor compliance. Regarding costs, the court found M’s conduct regarding the children proceedings was not exceptional enough to warrant a costs order against her, resulting in no order as to costs. The court found that M had obstructed access previously but did not find her conduct exceptional enough for costs. The court also found that F had affairs with a third party named Charlotte. The court accepted the Social Welfare Officer's reports despite criticisms from F's counsel. The court ordered that F provide his roster to M and the Social Welfare Officer. The court ordered that handovers take place at Tseung Kwan O MTR station. The court ordered that M have video access to Cazzie during F's staying access. The court ordered that F have video access to Cazzie twice a week. The court ordered that F be allowed to approach the school for information. The court ordered that penal notice be endorsed. The court ordered that the parties attend co-parenting courses. The court ordered that the parenting co-ordinator be appointed with costs shared equally. The court ordered that the supervision order be for 12 months. The court ordered that a progress report be filed one month before expiry. The court ordered that F's costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. The court ordered that M may approach the translation office for interpreting the judgment.
Legal issues: Care and Control · Access Arrangements · Costs
Outcome: Joint custody, M sole care and control, defined access to F
Cites 1 case