|
FCMC 17515/2013
香 港 特 別 行 政 區
區 域 法 院
婚姻訴訟案件編號 2013 年第 17515 宗
______________________________
______________________________
| 主審法官: |
區域法院暫委法官彭家光內庭聆訊（非公開） |
| 審訊日期: |
2017年1月27日、2月24日 |
| 判決日期: |
2017年3月17日 |
-------------------------
判 案 書
(更改探視安排)
-------------------------
1. 這是一宗答辯人（女方）要求更改探視安排的審訊。
背景
2. 法庭對本案毫不陌生。本案的背景見於FCMC 7952/2012案，在2013年3月7日，區域法院暫委法官嚴舜儀的判案書（候訊期間贍養費），該案在2013年8月28日，本席的判案書（管養權），在2013年10月25日，本席的判案書（探視安排），於本案，在2014年10月7日，本席的判案書（更改候訊期間贍養費），和在2015年12月31日，本席的判案書（第17條申請）。
3. 就本申請而言，本席扼要地作以下介紹。訴訟雙方都是專業精算師。他們在2000年結婚，在2007年2月，誕下一對孖生女兒。由2011年10月開始，呈請人（男方）在上海工作，在2012年1月，兩名家庭子女離開香港到上海讀書，與男方同住。在2012年6月，男方以女方不合理行為，在FCMC 7952/2012案提出離婚呈請。在2012年7月，女方離開香港，到上海照顧兩名家庭子女。經多天審訊後，在2013年8月28日，在FCMC 7952/2012案，本席頒令將兩名家庭子女的管養權、照顧和管束權頒予女方，男方可得合理探視權，也許可女方將家庭子女帶回香港生活。
4. 在2013年10月25日，經聆聽雙方代表大律師的陳詞後，本席就男方的探視安排頒令如下：
(1) At all material times, both parties shall have free telephone, email and skype contact with the children when they are with the other parent.
(2) Access arrangement for the parties are set out as follows:-
Long School Holidays
(a) The children of the family namely (redacted), girls, both born on (redacted), shall spend one half of school holidays in the care of the Petitioner Father and one half of the school holidays in the care of the Respondent Mother for Christmas, New Year and Chinese New Year Holidays.
(b) The Petitioner Father shall care for the Children during all Easter Holidays.
(c) The Children shall spend 60% of the Summer Holidays in the care of the Petitioner Father and 40% of the Summer Holidays in the care of the Respondent Mother.
(d) In the absence of written agreement, the Petitioner Father shall care for the Children during the first part of the holidays and the Respondent Mother shall care for the Children in the later part of the holidays.
Term Time Public Holidays and Single school holidays
(e) The Petitioner Father shall care for the Children in all public and single school holidays. The Petitioner Father will provide 3 days prior written notice to the Respondent Mother if he will not be in a position to have access with the Children at such times. The Petitioner Father shall have such access from 5:00pm before the public holidays and single school holidays until the Children attend school on the next school day. The Petitioner shall pick up the Children at 5:00pm from their home base.
Term time
(f) During school term time, the Petitioner Father shall be at liberty to have access to the Children on alternate weekends from 5:00pm on Friday until the children attend school on Monday morning. The Petitioner Father shall give 2 days prior notice to the Respondent Mother if he cannot have a weekend access. If the Petitioner Father does not have weekend access, the paternal grandparents can have access from 12:00pm to 5:00pm on Sunday. The Petitioner or the paternal grandparents shall pick up the Children from their home base.
(g) The paternal grandparents shall have access from after school to 8:30pm every Tuesday during such times the Petitioner Father will endeavour to join them if this is possible.
(h) During school term time, upon the Petitioner Father providing 3 days prior written notice to the Respondent Mother, the Petitioner Father shall have overnight access from 5:00pm until the Petitioner Father sends them to school each day when he is in Hong Kong. The Petitioner Father shall pick up the Children from their home base.
(i) For the avoidance of doubt, the access referred to hereinabove under Paragraph (f)-(h) shall not exceed 15 days per calendar month during term time.
(3) There be leave to the Petitioner Father or his parents to remove the Children temporarily from Hong Kong for travelling to facilitate access.
5. 在上述探視安排作出以後，雙方就探視的問題爭拗不絕，也向法庭提出了數不清有多少次的傳票申請。
6. 在2013年11月，女方和兩名家庭子女回到香港在婚姻居所居住。在2013年12月，男方以一年分居雙方同意提出本呈請，FCMC 7952/2012案隨即擱置。
7. 在2013年12月19日，應雙方聯合申請本席頒令：
(1) Weekends immediately preceding or succeeding or covered wholly or partly by Long School Holidays are part of the Long School Holidays for the purpose of sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 of the Order dated 25th October, 2013, and they will not be counted as Term Time weekends for the purpose of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 2 of the said Order;
(2) Long School Holidays under paragraph 2 of the said Order shall be defined as starting from after school on the last school day before the holidays and ends on the morning of the first day of school after the holidays;
8. 在2014年2月18日，應雙方的申請本席作出指示：
與訟雙方任何一方若攜帶家庭子女離開香港，該方須於出境7天前以書面（包括電郵）通知對方，並在切實可行之情況下將行程（包括航班資料、停留地點詳情、同行人士資料以及會進行的活動資料）通知對方。
9. 在2014年4月16日，應男方的申請本席頒令：
Long School Holidays
1. In respect of Clause 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Order dated 25th October 2013, and Clause 2 of the Order dated 19th December 2013, the Long School Holidays access arrangement for the pickup and return of the children of the family namely (redacted), girls, both born on 28th February 2007, (“the Children”) by the Petitioner Father are set out as follows:-
(a.) The Petitioner Father and/or the paternal grandparents shall pick up the Children from their home base;
(b.) Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner Father and/or the paternal grandparents shall return the Children to their home base. The Petitioner Father shall provide prior written notice to the Respondent Mother if the Petitioner Father and/or the paternal grandparents return the Children to the Children’s school;
2. For the purpose of Clause 3 of the Order dated 25th October 2013, the Respondent Mother and/or the maternal grandmother shall provide the Children’s travel documents to the Petitioner Father and/or the paternal grandparents at the handover of the Children in the manner as stated in Clause 1(a) above;
3. Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner Father shall return the Children’s travel documents to the Respondent Mother at the handover of the Children in the manner as stated in Clause 1(b) above;
Easter 2014 Long School Holiday Access
4. The Petitioner Father shall pick up the Children from their home base at 3:30 p.m. on 16th April 2014;
Social Worker Report on Access
5. Social Worker Report on Access be obtained within 6 months from the date hereof;
10. 在2014年5月12日，再應男方的申請本席頒令：
D． The Access order dated 25th October 2013 be varied as follows:
Interim Access from 12th May 2014 to 21st May 2014
1. From 12th May 2014 to 15th May 2014 and from 19th May 2014 to 21st May 2014:
(a) The Petitioner shall pick up the children of the family namely (redacted), girls, both born on 28th February 2007, (“the Children”) from (redacted) School, (“their school”) after school or after After School Activities;
(b) Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner shall return the Children to their home base at Mei Foo at 6:30 p.m.;
2. From 16th May 2014 to 18th May 2014:
The Petitioner shall have staying access from 16th May 2014 to 18th May 2014. The Petitioner shall pick up the Children from their home base at Mei Foo at 5:00 p.m. on 16th May 2014;
3. Upon completion of the staying access, the Petitioner shall bring the Children to their school on 19th May 2014;
E. Access Arrangement Proposals:
Both parties do file and serve their access arrangement proposals on or before 20th May 2014 for the period from 22nd May 2014 to 22nd October 2014;
F. The Petitioner’s application for access arrangement be adjourned to the First Appointment hearing fixed on 22nd May 2014 at 10:30 a.m.;
11. 在2014年5月22日，經聆聽雙方的陳詞和閱讀雙方就探視安排的建議後，本席頒令：
1. Clause 2(h) of the Order dated 25th October 2013 be varied as follows:-
“During school term time, upon the Petitioner Father providing 3 days prior written notice to the Respondent Mother, the Petitioner Father shall have day-time access from after school until 6:30 p.m. The Petitioner Father may pick up the Children from school or their home base. Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner Father shall return the Children to their home base.”
2. The Petitioner Father shall provide written notice to the Respondent Mother on or before 1st July 2014 regarding the address of his residence;
3. The Petitioner Father shall provide information of his employer, nature of employment, and location(s) of the employment to the Respondent Mother within 3 days from the date of signing an employment contract;
12. 在2014年9月18日，又應男方的申請，本席頒令：
1. Paragraph 1 of the Order dated 22nd May 2014 be amended as follows:-
“During school term time, upon the Petitioner Father providing 3 days prior written notice to the Respondent Mother, the Petitioner Father shall have day-time access from after school until 6:30 p.m. The Petitioner Father may pick up the Children from school. Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner Father shall return the Children to their home base.”
2. The Court clerk to amend, seal and serve the abovementioned amended order to the parties;
3. The Social Worker Report on access be filed to the Court by December 2014;
4. The Petitioner’s application by Summons filed on 12th September 2014, in relation to overnight access, be adjourned to 5th January 2015 at 2:30p.m.
13. 在2015年3月18日，應男方上述2014年9月12日的傳票申請，本席頒令：
1． Clause 1 of the Order dated 18th September 2014 be amended as follows:-
“During school term time, upon the Petitioner Father providing 3 days prior written notice to the Respondent Mother, the Petitioner Father shall have day-time access from after school until 9:00 p.m. The Petitioner Father himself may pick up the Children from school or their home base. Upon completion of the access, the Petitioner Father shall return the Children to their home base.”
2． The definition of ‘after school’ shall start from after the Children’s regular ASA, if any, at their school on the day of the Petitioner Father’s access;
14. 在2015年8月28,法庭頒下暫准離婚令。
15. 在2016年3月14日，女方提出本申請，要求法庭頒令修改探視安排如下：
a) Let the father have the first half of Easter holiday, and mother have the second half of Easter holiday.
b) Let the father pickup and return in person the daughters at Meifoo home base in all kinds of father’s access.
c) During school term time, in case of there is any public competition or exam, the father shall return the daughters to mother’s home no later than 7:30pm one day before the competition or exam date during all kinds of father’s access. Father’s access do not apply at the competition or exam date.
d) During school term time, the father shall undertake to take the daughters to attend after school activities and learning courses during his access.
e) The father does not have access for Easter holidays during 22 to 31 March 2016. No made up access for Easter holiday 2016.
16. 男方的立場是，現行安排符合兩名家庭子女的利益，所以無更改的需要。
本席的看法
17. 家事法庭處理家庭子女管養或教養問題的時候，依據香港法例第13章《未成年人監護條例》第3條的規定，必須考慮以下的法律原則:
3. 一般原則
(1)有關未成年人的管養或教養問題，以及有關屬於未成年人或代未成年人託管的財產的管理問題，或從該等財產所獲收益的運用問題-
(a)在任何法院進行的法律程序中〔不論該法院是否第2條所界定的法院〕-
(i) 法院須以未成年人的福利為首要考慮事項，而考慮此事項時須對下例各項因素給予適當考慮-
(A)未成年人的意願〔如在顧及未成年人的年齡及理解力，以及有關個案的情况後，考慮其意願乃屬切實可行者〕；及
(B)任何關鍵性資料，包括聆訊進行時社會福利署署長備呈法院的任何報告；及
(ii) 在上述管養、教養、財產管理或收益運用等問題上，法院無須從任何其他觀點來考慮父親的申索，是否較母親的申索為優先，或母親的申索是否較父親的為優先；
(b)…母親所享有的權利及權能，與法律賦予父親的相同，而父親及母親雙方的權利及權能同等，並可由其中一方單獨行使；
18. 法例規定，在考慮女方的申請時，法庭須以家庭子女的最佳利益為首要考慮事項。考慮此事項時，按上述條例第3(1)(a)(i)(A)的規定，法庭須對家庭子女的意願，在切實可行的情況下給予適當考慮。兩名家庭子女現年差不多10歲，應有能力表達她們對探視安排的看法。
19. 就子女事宜，法庭索取了5份社會福利調查報告，日期依次序為2012年11月6日、2014年11月22日、2016年3月6日、2016年8月12日和2017年1月13日，和一份2017年1月13日的臨床心理學家報告。
20. 《未成年人監護條例》第3(1)(a)(i)(B)條也規定法庭須對社會福利調查報給予適當考慮。
21. 社工在最後一份報告中說：
Views of the Children-of-the-family
22. (The children of the family) revealed that they liked having access with their father. They usually had fun time and did not need to do any revision. They also liked residing with their mother who helped them a lot in doing revision while they longed for more fun time with her. During the recent interview, (the children of the family) were quite reserved in revealing the sleeping arrangement during access. They showed their wish to get rid from the conflicts between the parents over access arrangement. Though they had all along showed their stress on receiving phone calls from either parent or sending messages to them when they stayed with another parent, they focused on their cell phones which were suspected to have been removed at home during this reporting period. (The younger child) further worried that the messages in the cell phone were deleted. Regarding access, (the older child) requested for the pick-up venue be at home base as she needed time to pick up her belongings.
22. 由以上可見兩名家庭子女喜愛和父親相處的時間。並無爭議，兩名女兒和父親和爺爺、嫲嫲都有很密切的關係。
23. 按上述法庭頒布的命令，男方獲得的探視包括電話、電郵、Skype、長假期留宿探視、學期中假期探視、隔週末留宿探視、爺爺、嫲嫲星期二探視、特設探視等，男方獲頒的探視時間，是非常慷慨的。女方作出本申請的理由是，隨著兩名家庭子女長大，她們在學校功課，和課外活動上所需要的時間逐漸增加，在現行的探視安排下，兩名家庭子女回家後會出現缺交功課、疲倦、生病等情況，因此男方應減少探視時間。
24. 男方說，在探視期間，他會督促兩名家庭子女做功課，也有和她們一起進行許多有益身心的活動，不相信兩名家庭子女會因探視出現缺交功課、疲倦、生病等情況，也認為無需要更改現行探視安排。
25. 從社工的報告可見，在現行的安排下，兩名家庭子女在學業成績，和課外活動各方面的發展都是相當不錯的。社工說：
6. (The children of the family) were now attending Primary 4 at (redacted) School. They, twin sisters, were in the same class. They enjoyed learning at school and maintained happy school life. They maintained above-average school performance, especially outstanding in English language. They also actively participated into different extra-curricular activities including English drama, girl guides, school choir and school Chinese band team. They also maintained to attend regular individual class on piano, Guzheng (古箏) and Chinese calligraphy at the nearby private learning centre.
26. 本席看來，訴訟雙方現時的爭端，源於雙方在如何管教子女方面有不同的理念。男方的看法是，父母應給子女很大的自由度，令子女能有充份的空間可發揮他們的主動性、創意和本身的長處；女方認為父母應對子女加以督促和栽培，所以她比較看重子女的學業成績，和要求她們在不同的課外活動有出色的表現。在雙方的婚姻關係破裂後，他們的關係轉變為以他們的女兒為中心，在他們在如何管教子女的不同方法的爭拗之中，自然地兩名家庭子女便成為磨心。往往可以見到，女方拒絕男方探視，她所持的理由是家庭子女需要做功課，她們必須出席某些活動，所以男方不能在某些時間探視，男方卻對女方的說法不以為然，他認為所謂家庭子女要做功課，或出席某些課外活動，都只是女方的需要。反之，男方說家庭子女需要多些和他一起的時間，女方就認為那只是男方的需要。
27. 本席認同子女需要父母的督促和管教，也需要空間來發揮，所以絕非是在這裡全盤否定任何一方的說法和做法，而只是想在這裡指出，若繼續讓家庭子女成為訴訟雙方在管教方面的爭拗的磨心，將對她們的成長造成不良的影響。
28. 如臨床心理學家在其報告中指出：
Children’s attitude towards access
7. Both children expressed their marked distress by the parents’prolonged intense conflicts. They felt sad and angry with wishful thinking that they had never divorced and could stop all the conflicts. Agitatedly, the younger child stressed that the parents fought relentlessly for them as if they were the parental possessions, making her feel highly disturbed every day. She further emphasized that she did not belong to anyone but herself. If the conflicts continued, she would feel deadly distraught. Consistently, the older child dully expressed her sadness about the parental disputes for a long time and was resistant to mention about her family in the interview. They were drawn into the parental conflicts as the father had many accusations of the mother and the mother would become irritated if they mentioned about the father. Thus, the children had to remain cautious about what they expressed towards the other parent in order to avoid upsetting either party. The younger child was particularly worried about irritating the father’s feelings when she expressed her views towards the access. Although she felt disturbed about certain access arrangements, she tended to suppress her feelings to avoid conflicts.
8. Regarding the access arrangements, the children displayed rather different attitudes. While the older child was able to express both likes and dislikes about the access arrangement with caution, the younger child obviously took side with the father, showing strong favor to him. In particular, the younger child described the family relationship as a battle between the parents in which she preferred father to win and she cheered on him (“爸爸加油”). Rather extreme views of parents were expressed (i.e. one being all good, one being all bad). She vaguely mentioned negative attribute of mother which she reported hearing from the father and she trusted without reasons. She felt sad and angry about mother confiscating the phones given by father and disallowing her to use the father’s gifts. All aspects of access were regarded as highly positive as she enjoyed playing, shopping and dining with father, and the father never scolded her. Yet, she admitted that she still wanted to have more free time to play with mother and sister.
9. For the older child, she felt most irritated and pressured about the father’s nagging for more contact and excessive questioning on her “inadequate” contact with him, such as the reasons she did not send him messages, did not answer his calls, did not make calls, and so forth. Skype contact was particularly disturbing to her as she disliked facing the camera for a long time while being questioned. Although the father used money to “encourage” her to make more contact with him, she felt negative about this way of interaction. However, she admitted that she loved the gifts that the father gave her just before the conjoint session, therefore she changed her views more positively towards the access in the second interview. Other than the father’s nagging during phone contact, she generally enjoyed the gifts, dining experiences and hotel facilities without the need to practice musical instruments during the access. Yet, it would be much easier for her if she could go home after school to pack up the schoolwork and belongings for home leaves. Meanwhile, she also expressed her wish for having more time with mother on holidays so that they could engage in fun family activities.
10. The observation of conjoint sessions between the father and each child consistently showed that they had harmonious relationship. The children displayed rather regressive child-like behavior with the father (i.e. sitting on his lap and competing for playing with father first) and tried to please him. The father responded with enthusiasm and playful behaviors. Throughout the play, they remained close proximity, positive affect and high energy. Little limit setting was displayed by father.
11. To sum up, both children felt trapped into the parental disputes while the older child experienced loyalty conflicts, creating remarkable internalized pressure, sadness, anger and helplessness. Their manifestations of taking side, exhibiting extreme views, and showing high anxiety when expressing personal views of access arrangements were evident of unhealthy signs while being caught into parental discords. Regarding the specific access arrangements, several concerns about phone contact and handover place were reported. Both children also voiced out their desire for more free time with mother for family activities.
29. 如在本文開始時所述，本席對本案毫不陌生，經過去這幾年來，許多次聆訊以後，本席對雙方和兩名家庭子女在探視方面的需要，是十分瞭解的。從上文的法庭頒令可見，雖然這幾年來雙方作出不少申請，但所要求的不外都是一些在探視安排如何執行方面的小修小改，若雙方能互相合作的話，很可能根本無需要法庭介入。明顯地，最需要改變的，是訴訟雙方的心態。在此本席強調，這個改變，必須來自雙方。本席認為儘管訴訟雙方就管教子女有不同的理念和方法，但這很可能並不是問題的根本，在一個家庭裡面常見父母會扮演所謂“好警察”、“壞警察”的不同角色，眾所週知，父母教養子女，須剛柔並濟，本席認為若雙方能真正地做到以子女為本，在管教兩名家庭子女上互相信任、互相尊重，在各自和家庭子女相處的時間發揮各自的角色和功用，也儘量和對方的做法相配合，則縱使雙方有不同的管教方法，家庭子女也可以健康快樂地成長。
30. 又如臨床心理學家在報告中作結論：
Conclusions
12. Based on the aforementioned information, the children were observed to experience marked emotional disturbances by being drawn into prolonged, intense parental discords. Both expressed their wish for the parental reconciliation and having more free time with the mother for relaxing family activities. Regarding the access arrangement, the older child found the phone contact excessive and unpleasant. She preferred to go home before access for the convenience of packing. Apart from this, both children generally felt positive about the access arrangements.
13. In view of the children’s remarkable distress and emotional need for both parents, the parents are advised to put aside their personal antagonism and to free the children from their mutual conflicts and form the pressure of taking side. Furthermore, they should find room for compromise rather than criticisms in their access arrangements for the consideration of psychological harm that was already created on their children. Any kinds of antagonist behaviors towards another parent (i.e. badmouthing, displaying negative attitude when children mentioned another parent, inappropriately setting limits on the use of gifts from another parent) should be strictly avoided from the children for protecting their bonding with each parent which was fundamental to their psychological well-being, family concepts and future family development.
31. 按以上的考慮，本席在以下逐一就女方的要求作出討論。
電話、電郵和Skype（見2013年10月25日的命令的第(1)段）
32. 現行的安排是男方可隨時以電話、電郵、Skype接觸兩名家庭子女。女方認為這個安排對家庭子女的日常生活秩序造成困擾，她要求當兩名家庭子女由她照顧時，男方只可在晚上8時至8時30分這段時間內，以電話接觸兩名家庭子女。社工和臨床心理學家都認為為減少雙方之衝突，法庭應在時間方面作出限制。從社工和臨床心理學家報告可見（見上文），雙方因電話探視問題時常有衝突，雙方在這方面的矛盾，已令家庭子女頗為反感。為了照顧兩名家庭子女的感受，本席同意將這項探視時間規定於每天晚上8時至8時30分這段時間內進行。男方擔心若有時間規定，女方會設法令家庭子女無暇在這個時段內，接聽男方的來電。就此，本席提示女方，她須儘量避免男方所說的情況發生。
長假期探視（見2013年10月25日的命令第(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)段）
33. 雙方因長假期探視，也常有爭拗。現行的安排是男方與女方平分聖誕、新年和農曆年假期，另男方得復活節全部，和暑假之60%。除非另有協議，否則男方佔假期之前部分。就男方接送兩名家庭子女的時間和地點，現行男方的做法是在假期開始前的一天，從學校接走兩名家庭子女，在最後一天將她們送回家中。在過去幾年，男方行使了所有長假期探視。女方認為雙方應平分所有學校長假期，包括復活節和暑假。另方面，為了避免爭拗，她也要求男方在學校長假期之第一天早上8時從家中接走兩名家庭子女，在探視完結時將她們在晚上8時前送回家中。按現有長假期安排，男方可比女方多得大約15天假期。社工和臨床心理學家基於公平原則，支持女方平分所有學校長假期的要求。為減少雙方的衝突，社工也支持規定男方在家中接走兩名家庭子女，和接送的時間。
34. 本席先就雙方是否應平分所有學校長假期作討論。男方獲十分慷慨的探視安排，但這是一個雙方同意的安排，也是本著男方和爺爺、嫲嫲和家庭子女的關係十分密切，和男方當時是在上海（現在北京）工作等考慮作出的，雖然家庭子女在2013年時是6歲、唸小一，現在已10歲、唸小四，她們的學校功課、課外活動都會比她們唸小一時繁重，但考慮到如前所說，兩名家庭子女喜愛和父親相處的時間，在現行安排下，她們在各方面的發展也不錯，本席維持目前男方得復活節全部，和暑假之60%的安排。
35. 在接送方面，因為男方會在假期開始前一天便從內地來港，所以他希望在到香港後便可以在當天到學校接走兩名家庭子女，這樣他和她們便將有更多相處的時間。在長假期留宿探視期間，雖然男方會帶兩名家庭子女離開香港，但男方認為不需要給兩名家庭子女太多時間來收拾東西。有見於她們會離開香港，本席認為應給她們充足的時間來在家中收拾各樣個人用品，和學業用的書簿、文儀用具和功課。反之，若男方到學校接走兩名家庭子女，本席相信會對她們造成不便。經小心考慮後，就學校長假期探視的接送地點和時間方面，本席採納女方的要求。
學期中公眾假期和學校假期探視（見2013年10月25日的命令第(2)(e)段）
36. 現行的安排是，男方可在學期中所有公眾假期和學校假期進行探視，在假期前一天下午5時，從家中接走兩名家庭子女，探視完結後將她們送回學校。若男方因任何原因不行使這項探視，他須在三天前以書面通知女方。女方要求取消學校假期探視，只保留公眾假期探視，同時將探視時間改為公眾假期當天由上午8時至下午3時前，和男方須在家中接送兩名家庭子女。
37. 在過去數年來，因為工作關係，男方能進行學期中學校假期探視的日子極少。又如女方指出，從她的經驗可見，在學校假期前，往往老師會發一些額外的功課給學生，又學校的考試和測驗，經常會安排在學校假期後進行。經小心考慮後以上各點後，本席接納女方的要求，取消學校假期探視，但保留公眾假期探視時間。本席認為可保留男方在假期前一天下午5時，在家接走兩名家庭子女的安排，但考慮到社工支持女方要求男方在家中接送女兒，他須在假期完結當天下午8時前將她們送回家。
隔週末留宿探視（見2013年10月25日的命令第(2)(f)段）
38. 現行男方可隔週在星期五下午5時，從家中接去兩名家庭子女，在星期一將她們送回學校。男方會和兩名家庭子女在香港共度週末。女方要求將男方的隔週末探視，改為由星期六上午8時至星期日晚上8時前，在家中接送。男方說他行使了所有隔週末探視。社工認為隔週末探視是順利進行的。女方卻埋怨現在男方在星期五便接走兩名家庭子女，令她們平白喪失在星期五晚上進行學習，和參加女方安排的課外活動的機會。但如本席在前指出，兩名家庭子女喜愛和父親相處，父女感情深厚，男方的探視是重要的。因此，本席不採納女方的要求。本席維持原來男方可在星期五下午5時，從家中從家中接去兩名家庭子女的安排，但按社工和臨床心理學家的意見，他須在星期天下午8時前將她們送回家。
逢星期二探視（見2013年10月25日命令第(2)(g)段）
39. 現行逢星期二爺爺、嫲嫲可接兩名家庭子女放學，晚上8時30分前將她們送回家。女方要求取消星期二探視。根據社工報告，爺爺、嫲嫲行使了絕大部分星期二探視。按社工所說，大致來說，星期二探視是順利進行的。兩名家庭子女和爺爺、嫲嫲的關係密切，本席認為不應取消逢星期二探視安排。接送地點方面，按社工和心理學家的建議改為在家中，時間則規定為下午5時至晚上8時前。
學期中特定探視（原2013年4月25日的命令第(2)(h)段，經修正後的條文見2015年3月13日的命令）
40. 現行在學期中男方可以3天事前書面通知，進行特定探視，從學校接去兩名家庭子女，在晚上9時前送回家中。這個安排的目的在，若男方公幹來港，可有機會和兩名家庭子女會面。在過去數年，男方能進行特定探視的機會並不多。女方要求將通知期由3天改為14天，並要求將接送時間改為下午5時至晚上7時前，接送地點為家中。為減少雙方的衝突，社工和臨床心理學家支持女方要求延長通知期的要求。經聆聽男方的陳詞後，本席接受男方所說，若要求他須給予多於天3的通知期，對他來說並不可行，因此不打算延長他的通知期。在接送地點方面，本席仍採納社工和心理學家的建議，將接送地點改為家中。時間方面，規定為下午5時至晚上8時前。
有關探視日數的限制（見2013年10月25日的命令第(2)(i)段）
41. 現有的限制是男方在上述第(2)(f)至(h)段的探視，總計每月不得超過15天。以上的計算並不包括長假期、公眾假期和學校假期探視。女方說，若包括長假期，公眾假期和學校假期探視，會有男方在一個月內，有超過15天探視的情況。若發生這樣的情況，即她和兩名家庭子女相處的日子，在那個月內比男方還要少，她認為這與她作為法庭頒令獲兩名家庭子女的照顧和管束權的身分不相稱，因此要求若男方在一個月內探視的日數包括上述第(2)(a)至(h)段下的探視超過15天，男方不得在該月內進行第(2)(h)段下之特定探視。如在前文所說，男方獲十分慷慨的探視安排，但這是一個雙方同意的安排，也是本著男方和爺爺、嫲嫲和家庭子女的關係十分密切，和男方當時是在內地工作等考慮作出的，因此本席不接納女方這一點要求。
42. 就兩名家庭子女留宿的安排，經聆聽女方的陳詞，本席同意，兩名家庭子女已差不多10歲，男方不應與她們同睡一床。同時，若遇男方與女朋友同房，男方及女朋友，應與兩名家庭子女分房睡。
43. 女方要求男方承諾，在探視期間，會帶兩名家庭子女出席女方替她們安排的活動。於男方探視的時間內，家庭子女的活動，本席認為應由男方作出安排，因此並不贊同女方上述的要求。但如前所述，雙方應互相合作。若遇女方替兩名家庭子女安排的活動中，無可避免地有一些重要的活動，會在男方探視期間舉行，男方應加以配合，儘量容許家庭子女出席，在這樣的情況下，女方也應就男方因而損失了的探視時間，予以補償。在這方面來說，須依賴雙方的良性互動，法庭現在是無法以頒令作出一個硬性的規定。
裁決
44. 總的來說，法庭頒令男方的探視安排如下，由本命令日期起生效：
(1) 在兩名家庭子女由女方照顧時，男方可在晚上8時至8時30分這段時間內以電話、Skype接觸兩名家庭子女。
(2) 界定探視安排如下：
長假期
(a) 訴訟雙方平分聖誕、新年、農曆新年假期；
(b) 男方可得全部復活節假期；
(c) 男方可得暑假之60%；女方可得40%；
(d) 除非另有協議，否則男方佔長假期之首部分。長假期探視，由假期第一天上午8時開始，至最後一天晚上8時前，由男方在兩名家庭子女家中接送；
學期中
(e) 男方可在學期中公眾假期前一天下午5時，在家中接去兩名家庭子女作留宿探視，在假期完結當天下午8時前送回家。若男方不會進行學期中公眾假期探視，必須給予女方不少於3天書面通知；
(f) 隔週末男方可在星期五下午5時，在家中接去兩名家庭子女作留宿探視，在星期天下午8時前將她們送回家。若男方不會進行隔週末探視，必須給予女方不少於2天書面通知。若男方不作隔週末留宿探視，爺爺、嫲嫲可在星期日進行日間探視，在中午12時在家中接去兩名家庭子女，在下午5時前送回家；
(g) 爺爺、嫲嫲可在每星期二在下午5時在家中接去兩名家庭子女進行探視，在晚上8時前送回家。若可以的話，男方應盡力參予星期二探視；
(h) 在學期中，男方可在先給予女方不少於3天書面通知後，進行特定探視。男方接送時間為下午5時至晚上8時前，地點為家中；
(i) 上述第(f)至(h)段探視之總日數限制為每月不多於15天。
(3) 在探視期間，男方及爺爺、嫲嫲可帶兩名家庭子女離開香港。若男方及爺爺、嫲嫲打算帶兩名家庭子女離開香港，訴訟雙方須分別在接走和送回家庭子女時交出和交回家庭子女的旅遊證件。
(4) 若訴訟任何一方攜帶家庭子女離開香港，該方須於出境7天前以書面（包括電郵）通知對方，並在切實可行之情況下將行程（包括航班資料、停留地點詳情、同行人士資料以及會進行的活動資料）通知對方。
(5) 在留宿探視期間，男方須與兩名家庭子女分床睡。若男方與女朋友同房，男方及女朋友，須與兩名家庭子女分房睡。
(6) 在2013年12月19日的命令中，法庭就隔週末探視的數算方法作出的指示，依然有效。
45. 女方的申請並非完全成功，也不是全盤失敗，雙方也只是因為疼愛女兒才就探視安排有所爭議，所以就本申請，本席作無訟費命令，包括保留訟費。這是一個暫准命令，如雙方在判案書頒發後的14天內沒有任何申請，暫准訟費命令將轉為絕對命令。
呈請人： 無律師代表，親自出席
答辯人： 無律師代表，親自出席
|