Read the full judgment text of FCMC 11771/2010 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 6 March 2013 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial Causes – Access – Best Interests of Child – Guardianship of Minors Ordinance – District Court – Social Investigation Report – Therapy – Expert Recommendations – Joint Custody – Parental Conflict – Child Refusal to See Parent – Psychological Assessment – Therapeutic Services – Co-parenting Plan – Maintenance – Family Court Ruling – The Petitioner father and Respondent mother are involved in matrimonial proceedings concerning access to their two children, I and N. Under a court order dated 26 November 2010, the father has joint custody while the mother has care and control with generous access to the father. However, the father has not seen the eldest child since August 2010 nor the son since later in the same year. The mother claims the children do not wish to see their father, while the father alleges she thwarts access. The court considers the general principles under section 3 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance, Cap. 13, which states the best interests of the minor are the first and paramount consideration. Access is regarded as the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents. The court notes that in high conflict situations, the parent with care must actively encourage access. Clinical psychologist and therapist reports indicate the children have reached teenage years and pressure for visitation may cause rebellion. The psychologist recommends the mother provide genuine support to the father’s access and avoid involving children in disputes. The therapist recommends therapeutic services for personal growth, parental counselling courses, and shared experiences to rebuild the father-child relationship. Specific recommendations include N receiving a full psychological assessment to rule out mental health issues, and both children engaging in extracurricular activities to develop self-esteem. The therapist suggests clear rules and consequences for therapy sessions and parental counselling to assist in handling teenage rebellion. The court notes N’s behaviour was extremely badly behaved, rude, non-compliant, and broke things during sessions. The court also notes outstanding financial issues that need to be resolved. The court agrees with all expert recommendations and urges the parties to put these proposals into action. The court decides not to make any further orders on access for the time being given the existing order for generous access. An updated Social Investigation Report shall be prepared in 15 months to assess compliance and effect on children’s arrangements. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties appeared in person.
Legal issues: Variation of access order · Implementation of expert recommendations
Outcome: Access order not varied for time being; Social Investigation Report ordered