PSD v. TFM

FCMC 12549/2022

[2026] HKFC 77

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO 12549 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

R U L I N G
(Non-molestation Order)

________________________

1.  This is the petitioner father’s ex parte application on notice for a non-molestation order against the respondent mother.  For the ease of reference, I shall refer to the petitioner as “the father” and the respondent as “the mother”.

2.  After having considered the parties’ affirmations and heard further from the parties today, I am of the view that the father’s application is unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed. 

3.  As this is my extempore ruling, I am not going to set out the background facts in details.  Suffice to say is that the parties married in November 2014 and have two children.  The elder is a daughter, now aged 9 years old, whom I shall refer to as “E”. The younger is a son, now 7 years old, whom I shall refer to as “W”.  The father petitioned for divorce in December 2022.  What ensued were litigation battles between the parties over the children’s arrangement and ancillary relief. 

4.  After a 6-day trial, Deputy District Judge Felix Li handed down his judgment on 26 February 2025, by which the learned judge granted the parties joint custody and shared care and control of the children.  I have had the benefit of the learned judge’s 71-page-long judgment which provides me with detailed factual background. 

5.  The father was not happy with the judge’s decision.  He applied for leave to appeal, and the application was dismissed on 2 July 2025.  He then lodged his leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  This application is pending.

6.  As for the ancillary relief, it was settled at the beginning of the trial, as a result of which a consent order was made on 3 July 2025. 

7.  Despite decree absolute was issued on 6 August 2025, the case did not come to a rest. 

8.  Then came the father’s present ex parte application that was taken out on 15 December 2025.  The application for non-molestation order was against the mother in respect of the elder daughter, E, only.   At the ex parte hearing, I directed that this ex parte application should be on notice; as a result of which the mother, together with her legal representative, appeared before me on 22 December 2025 when this court directed the parties to exchange affirmations and adjourned the application to today.

9.  Mr Tam, who appears for the mother today, has helpfully set out the legal principles. I am not going to set them out here.

10.  I said the father’s application ought to be dismissed.  Below are my reasons.

11.  A reading of the Ex-parte Summons and the Supporting Affirmation, which were on the proforma forms provided by the Family Court Registry, clearly showed that the father was aimed at making an application for variation of the custody, care and control order only.  Under the part “Variation / Suspension of Custody / Access Order”, the father said:

“Due to the persistent psychological bullying by the mother, E has been hospitalised four times with stress-induced vomiting, the lengthiest being 5 December 2025. She refuses to return to the mother through fear. I seek an immediate order, granting the sole care and control for the safety and well-being of the children. E does not want to be separated from her brother, W.”

12.  The father did not fill out the part in respect of “Non‑molestation Order”. The supporting affirmation was the same.  He only filled out the part seeking variation / suspension of the existing custody / access order.  Attached to the affirmation was his submission entitled “Application for Variation in Court Custody Order of 26 February 2025” with some documents.  Despite these shortcomings, I gave the father some allowances on this since he is not legally trained. 

13.  However, the father has been sending in documents and submissions to court in an undisciplined manner.  To put it bluntly, the father has been sending in documents whenever he feels necessary.  This has to be stopped.

14.  The event that triggered the father’s application was clearly the hospitalisation of E due to vomiting on 8 December 2025.   Previously, there were three other hospitalisations with the earliest one happened as early as in 2023.   However, all these other three hospitalisations had been dealt with at the trial before Deputy District Judge Felix Li when he dealt with the children’s arrangement.

15.  The father also referred to an alleged sexual assault.  The father said the mother repeatedly pressurised E into silence over this event.  E did not dare to tell the social investigation officers and the clinical psychologist at that time. However, I notice that the reference to this alleged sexual assault by a person in the name of Wan happened way back in 2023 and was found not established by the Social Welfare Department after investigation.  Deputy District Judge Felix Li also referenced this alleged incident in his judgment.

16.  The only event that the father could rely upon is E’s illness of December 2025 that led to her hospitalisation on 8 December 2025.

17.  The question is how this incident could be relied upon to substantiate a non-molestation order which, essentially, is an injunction against the mother, prohibiting her from participating in the care and control of E and even depriving her the chance of seeing E?

18.  At the hearing, the father was not able to refer me to the particulars of conduct or behaviours by the mother or her agent that suggested the granting of a non-molestation order is warranted.  The father was also not able to articulate the particular conduct or behaviour he would like the mother to be restrained.

19.  I acknowledge that the Discharge Slip issued by the Princess Margaret Hospital on 11 December 2025 stated that the diagnosis was “psychological factor affecting medical condition” and “persistent vomiting”.  It is unclear if E had been examined by a psychiatrist during her stay at the hospital.  Be that as it may, it is one thing that E was suffering from psychological factor.  It is quite another that this factor was caused by the mother, specifically by the mother’s conduct that attracted a non‑molestation order.    The father said E’s vomiting symptom had been for three and a half years, and this, I note, also featured at the trial before Deputy District Judge Felix Li.  I recognise that E might have vomited for psychological reasons.  Yet, there is no evidence it was caused by the conduct of the mother.

20.  The father produced, without leave, a Case Recording dated 18 December 2025 by a case worker of the Tung Chung Integrated Services Centre where it was recorded that:

E stated that her mother was “strict” and described her mother as ‘annoying’.  When the case worker further explored their relationship with the mother, E did not provide additional details or elaboration.

The reluctance of E might or might have not been caused by the mother.  I do not wish to speculate.  All I can see is this record does not assist the father.

21.  The father also produced, without leave, the Admission Note dated 8 December 2025 with the identity of individuals and a large portion of it being redacted. Hence, I do not find any help from this document.  Further, it was a record of information from the father and from E.  Which part of information was from the father and which part of the information was from E is unknown.  Anyway, this was not a diagnosis.  It was, at most, a record of allegations.

22.  Lastly, the allegation against XXXXX, the mother’s boyfriend, is, in my view, a bare assertion and is devoid of any particulars. 

23.  Shortly before the father’s present application, the progress social investigation report was issued on 27 November 2025.  It was recorded at paragraph 12 of the report that the investigation officer could not ascertain the views of E who had shown inconsistent views on different occasions.  The report stated that overall, E appeared closely related with both parents and enjoying the home environment naturally at the parents’ home.  In the same paragraph, it was recorded E expressed to the investigation officer that she was angry with her father sometimes when he forced to say.

24.  As for the alleged sexual assault, the investigation officer dealt with this at [14]. It was recorded that there was no updated information from the Police that the case required further investigation or re-open after the Multidisciplinary Case Conference.

25.  I do not propose to refer to other parts of the progress report in details.  Suffice to say is that there was no mention or complaint of any conduct on the part of the mother that sheds light of warranting a non‑molestation order.  The social investigation officer recommended the joint custody and the shared care and control arrangement to continue.  Clearly, the father was unhappy with this recommendation.  As I said, shortly after this, he took out the present application. At today’s hearing, the father commented that all the professionals involved, including the social welfare officers and the clinical psychologists, were biased and lied in favour of the mother.  The police were useless. 

26.  It is clear that the father was unsatisfied with Deputy District Judge Felix Li’s judgment regarding the children’s arrangement, and he tried to have it over-turned. There is a legitimate way for him to do so.  As I referred to above, his application for leave to appeal is pending at the Court of Appeal.   The father has also taken out an application for variation of custody, care and control due to a material change of circumstances which is now being dealt with by another court.  This is what he may do.  However, what the father is not entitled to do is to take out an unmeritorious application for non-molestation order in order to overturn the judgment through the back-door and effectively to deprive the mother’s shared care and control of E.   E needs to reconnect with her mother as soon as possible.

27.  For the above reasons, the father’s application is dismissed with costs; the Respondent’s costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

28.  I have to warn the father that he has to comply with the Shared care and control arrangement as ordered by Deputy District Judge Felix Li. 

29.  I also make an order that unless with the leave of the court, no further documents and affirmations be filed by the father.  My clerk will inform the Registry of this order.