Read the full judgment text of FCMC 004317/2008 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 30 June 2009 before Deputy Judge C.K. Chan.
Custody – Care and control – Welfare of the child – Matrimonial Causes – District Court – Joint custody – Access – Counselling – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap.192 – Guardianship of Minors Ordinance Cap.13 – Parties agreed to joint custody but disputed care and control – Children emotionally closer to father but mother provides more personal daily care – Court grants sole care and control to mother – Father granted reasonable access – Orders for counselling – No costs. The parties married in 1999 and separated in 2007, agreeing to divorce based on one year separation with consent. They have two children, a daughter aged 7 and a son aged 4, for whom they agreed to joint custody but disputed care and control. Social investigation and clinical psychologist reports indicated the children were emotionally closer to the father, but the mother offered more personal daily care due to her flexible working schedule. The court considered the welfare of the minor as the first and paramount consideration under s.3 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance, Cap.13. The court found that while the children were emotionally closer to the father, the mother's ability to provide personal daily care outweighed this advantage. The mother's flexible working schedule allowed her to spend more time with the children compared to the father who relied on a domestic helper. The court granted sole care and control to the mother to ensure the children received personal daily care. The father was granted reasonable access including alternate weekends, Wednesday evenings, and half of long school holidays. Both parties were ordered to arrange counselling service from Dr. Levy for the children. No order was made as to costs. The court noted that both parents were loving and caring parents. The mother's ability to provide personal daily care was deemed more than enough to offset the father's advantage in emotional attachment. The court hoped the father would not view this as a defeat but as an opportunity to maintain a close relationship through generous access. The court agreed to the parties' agreement to engage a private clinical psychologist, Dr. Levy, to provide counselling service to the children.
Legal issues: Care and control of children
Outcome: Sole care and control granted to the mother; joint custody maintained; access granted to father; no costs.
Cites 1 case