TKM also known as WTKM v. WHG

FCMC 5723 / 2021

[2023] HKFC 41

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NO. 5723 OF 2021

----------------------------

----------------------------

_____________________________________

JUDGMENT
(Access)

______________________________________

A.  INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the trial on access arrangements for the only child of the family (“Child”), a boy born in July 2020 and is now 2 ½ years old.

2.  The Petitioner (“Mother”) and the Respondent (“Father”) got married in June 2017. Father is a businessman with business interests in Hong Kong, Macau and Portugal. Marital discord arose in about 2020. On 11 June 2021, Mother presented the petition for divorce. She also moved out with the Child from the matrimonial home.

3.  By the Order dated 25 November 2021, joint custody of the Child was granted to the parties, care and control of the Child was granted to Mother.

4.  Father first has interim access of the Child by the Order dated 23 August 2021, which was followed by various subsequent variations, mainly to increase Father’s access (See Section B below).

5.  Both parties agreed that Father’s access is to be increased gradually and progressively. The dispute is on how and when. At the trial, Father also asked the Court to grant a shared care order. Mother disagreed.

6.  In addition to the evidence of the parties, the Court heard the evidence of the Clinical Psychologist (“Clinical Psychologist”) who filed a report dated 20 July 2022 (“CP Report”), and the evidence of the Social Work Officer (“SWO”) who filed an Updated Social Welfare Report dated 21 July 2022 (“Updated SIR”).

B.  HISTORY OF ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

7.  By an Order made on 23 August 2021 by DDJ R Chow, Father has an interim access of the Child in the following terms:

(1)  Day access: from 25 August 2021, every Wednesday and Saturday from 12 noon to 4 pm to be held at Flat 33A.

(2)  Pick up and drop off arrangements: by Father at Mother’s home; and

(3)  Mother shall accompany the Child but she shall remain in a separate room at Flat 33A and shall not interrupt Father’s access with the Child.

8.  On 25 November 2021, DDJ R Chow granted the joint custody of the Child to the parties with care and control to Mother. Father’s interim access was varied as follows:

(1)  The time for day access on every Wednesday be changed to 10 am to 2 pm.

(2)  The time for day access on every Saturday be increased to 10 am to 4 pm.

(3)  Mother’s domestic helper was to accompany the Child during access on certain specified dates.

(4)  After 4 December 2021, neither Mother nor her domestic helper shall accompany the access, and the access shall not be confined to take place in Flat 33A.

(5)  Pick up and drop off arrangements: by Father and/or his domestic helper, and/or his parents at Mother’s home.

9.  On 8 February 2022, DDJ R Chow ordered a 1 night staying access every two weeks and varied the time for day access as follows:

(1)  Commencing from 14 February 2022, staying access of one night every two weeks from Saturday evening at 6 pm to Sunday morning at 10 am.

(2)  Day access on every Saturday from 10 am to 4 pm on the weeks when there was no staying access.

(3)  Day access on every Wednesday from 10 am to 4 pm.

(4)  Pick up and drop off arrangements: by Father and/or his domestic helper and/or his parents inside the lobby of Mother’s residence.

10.  The parties also agreed to a special access arrangement for the Child’s attendance of village ceremony held by the paternal extended family. This agreement was embodied in an Order dated 8 February 2022 as follows:

“AND UPON the parties acknowledging and agreeing that it is in the best interests of the child of the family, namely [name], a boy born on 3 July 2020 to take part in his paternal family tradition of attending a village ceremony in Yuen Long in the coming years after 2022 unless with good reasons to the contrary.”

11.  There was an order for an extension of 2 hours (i.e. from Saturday 6 pm to Sunday 12 noon) for the bi-weekly staying access made by DDJ J Chow on 12 May 2022. The day access and pick up arrangements set out in the Order dated 8 February 2022 continued to be in force.

12.  To match with the Child’s schedule when he starts pre-school, there was a variation of Father’s access pursuant to the Order of DDJ J Lee dated 28 July 2022 as follows:

(1)  When the Child starts pre-school,

(a)  Day access: every Monday and Wednesday from 10 am to 1 pm. If the Child is transferred to morning class, then Monday and Wednesday from after school to 4 pm.

(b)  Pick up and drop off arrangements: at the Child’s pre-school, where appropriate, otherwise, at the inside of Mother’s residence lobby.

(c)  If the Child attends afternoon session of pre-school, Mother is responsible for picking up the Child from school on the days on which Father has day access. If the Child is transferred to morning class, Father is responsible for picking up the Child from school on the days when he has day access.

(2)  If Father is not in Hong Kong, Father do have video access with the Child during his regular access times. Such video access shall take place at Mother’s residence and be facilitated by Father’s parents.

13.  In July 2022, the SWO recommended the following access arrangements[1]:

(1)  One to two nights per week of staying access on weekends or public holidays.

(2)  Two days of day access per week on weekdays.

(3)  Access on long school holidays be gradually increased from three days in Christmas 2022 to 50% basis from Summer 2023 onwards when the Child reached 3 years old.

(4)  The Child exchange points could be inside of Mother’s residence lobby or the Child’s school as appropriate.

(5)  Video access be arranged when Father was away from Hong Kong.

14.  On 30 September 2022, upon Father’s undertaking to complete a co-parenting course offered by Kids First of no less than 6 hours before the trial, this Court ordered further variation of Father’s interim access to allow weekly staying access, instead of bi-weekly, as from 22 October 2022. The time for the staying access is from Saturday 6 pm to Sunday 12 pm. The Saturday day access was cancelled. The other access arrangements in force at that time continued to be in force.

15.  Having heard the evidence of the two experts at trial, both parties revised their open proposals and narrowed down their differences.

16.  At the end of the trial, upon agreement of the parties on the access arrangements during Christmas holidays in 2022, an order was made on Father’s access in the following terms:

(1)  Day access on Monday (26 December 2022) and Wednesday (21 and 28 December 2022) from 10 am to 1 pm.

(2)  2 consecutive nights staying access from Friday 23 December 2022 at 6 pm to Sunday 25 December 2022 at 10 am.

(3)  1 night staying access from Saturday 31 December 2022 at 6 pm to Sunday 1 January 2023 at 8 pm.

C.  RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

17.  It is not in dispute that the paramount consideration is the best interests of the Child. Section 48C of Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (“MCO”) expressly provided that section 3 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (“GMO”) applies in relation to any order for custody care or supervision which may be made under MCO or Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance.

18.  Section 3 of GMO provides that:

“3(1) In relation to the custody or upbringing of a minor, and in relation to the administration of any property belonging to or held in trust for a minor or the application of the income of any such property—

(a) in any proceedings before any court (whether or not a court as defined in section 2) the court—

(i) shall regard the best interests of the minor as the first and paramount consideration and in having such regard shall give due consideration to —

(A) the views of the minor if, having regard to the age and understanding of the minor and to the circumstances of the case, it is practicable to do so; and

(B) any material information including any report of the Director of Social Welfare available to the court at the hearing; and

(ii) shall not take into consideration whether, from any other point of view, the claim of the father, in respect of such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father.”

(emphasis in bold added)

19.  The “welfare checklist”[2] was commonly used as a guideline or aide-mémoire in considering the custody care and control of minor child. This is not a compulsory nor exhaustive checklist. It is not a list to be mechanically went through to dictate the outcome. (H v N [2012] 5 HKLRD 498 [29] – [31], endorsed by the Court of Appeal in ZJ v XWN, supra [25]).

20.  The factors set out in the “welfare checklist[3]” are:

(1)  the ascertainable views of the child concerned (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding);

(2)  the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs;

(3)  the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and with other persons;

(4)  the likely effect on the child of any change in the child’s circumstances;

(5)  the child’s age, maturity, sex, social and cultural background and any characteristics of the child that the court considers relevant;

(6)  any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(7)  any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;

(8)  how capable each of the child’s parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting the child’s needs;

(9)  the practical difficulty and expenses of the child having contact with a parent, and whether that difficulty or expenses will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;

(10)  the range of powers available to the court under [this Ordinance] in the proceedings in question;

(11)  any other fact or circumstances that the court considers relevant.

21.  Access to a parent is the basic right of a child rather than a basic right of the parent. The Child should be given the opportunity to live and share his time with both parents in a manner that best suits the developmental and psychological needs of the Child: H v N, supra, [43] – [44].

D.  DECISION

D1.  The Child’s relationship with the parents

22.  The Child is currently 2 ½ years old. The SWO described him as “a cheerful and smart boy with satisfactory physical development”[4]. He is obviously too young to express any view in this matter.

23.  Mother is the primary carer. The SWO observed that a close emotional bonding and attachment had been developed between Mother and the Child.[5] The Clinical Psychologist observed that the Child enjoyed the companion of Mother. Mother was responsive to the Child and was able to provide guidance and comfort when needed.[6]

24.  The SWO described Father as “an affectionate father who maintained to have regular access including staying access with [the Child]”. The father-son relationship was observed to be “satisfactory with secured bonding between them. Their interaction was spontaneous and natural”.[7] The Clinical Psychologist was of the view that “[t]hough [the Child] seemed to be more attached to the paternal, it was impressed that [the Child] related well with [Father] who was generally attentive and responsive to the needs of [the Child]. With more time spending with [the Child] and under the continuous support of the paternal grandmother, the father-son bonding could be further strengthened.”[8]

D2.  Both parents’ involvement in the care of the Child

25.  The parties accepted that both parents shall be involved in the Child’s development and growth. This is in line with the recommendations in the Updated SIR and the CP Report.

26.  The SWO concluded in paragraph 28 of the Updated SIR that:

“28. Roles of both parents were complimentary and equally important to [the Child’s] upbringing. For the best interest of [the Child], a continuous and regular access with the non-residing parent would help to maintain a good parent-child relationship and bonding which conducive to the normal growth and development of the child.”

(emphasis in bold added)

27.  The Clinical Psychologist concluded in paragraph 26 of the CP Report that:

“26. Psychologically, it is essential for young children to have enough time and frequent contacts with both parents in order to develop bonding with them. When [the Child] was growing up and with his easy temperament, it is believed that he would be more able to adjust to two homes and get used to a temporary separation from his primary caregiver, i.e. [Mother]. From the observation of parents’ interaction with the child, [the Child] seemed to have satisfactory relationship with both parents and they were loving to [the Child]. [The Child] related well with [Father], together with the support of paternal grandmother who had good bonding with the child, frequent physical contacts between [Father] and [the Child] is thus recommended. However, given the young age of [the Child], he is still recommended to mainly stay with [Mother], his primary caregiver for the time being. Details of the access plan are suggested to be defined as clear as possible.”

(emphasis in bold added)

D3.  Consistent and predictable routine

28.  The Clinical Psychologist and the SWO emphasized the importance of maintaining a consistent and predictable routine for the Child. It was stated in the CP Report that:

“24. For [the Child], as a 2-year-old child, he is still sensitive to changes between homes. Consistent and predictable daily routines and nighttime rituals between two homes will provide stability and a sense of security for [the Child] to adjust. It seemed the mood and behavioural change of the child after access as reported by the mother was related to disruption of the routine of the child during access. Parents are therefore advised to align the caretaking routines and to specify and communicate clearly through text, email, or by exchanging daily journals over transitions between homes.”

(emphasis in bold added)

29.  On the assessment of the suitability to have an equal sharing of the Child’s care and a step up of Father’s access, the Clinical Psychologist stressed that one has to consider the following 3 factors:

(1)  The child’s temperament;

(2)  The parents’ communication;

(3)  The child’s adjustment.

30.  Both parties accepted that there shall be a consistent and predictable routine for the Child. It is conducive to the Child’s adjustment if the same pattern of daily routine is adopted during access.

D4.  Communication between the parties

31.  There is however a need for better and more effective communication between the parties. Both parties do not trust each other. Communication between the parties on matters relating to the Child was ineffective. This caused disruption to the Child’s routine and created stress for the Child.

32.  The Clinical Psychologist strongly advised the parties to maintain effective communication for the developmental and psychological needs of the Child:

“21. [Mother] stated 4 concerns regarding to the increase in access time, including (1) the childcare quality of [Father], (2) his involvement in access, (3) his intention of increasing access and (4) the perceived anxiety and mood change of [the Child] caused by the separation from [Mother]. Though [Mother] recognized the importance for [the Child] to maintain a relationship with the father, she seemed to be ambivalent in facilitating the father-son relationship.

22. It appeared to me that [Father] had a low trust level towards [Mother] in view of the unresolved grievances and continuous conflicts among them.

23. Communication seemed to become very challenging for [Mother] and [Father]. Parents are strongly advised to maintain effective communication for the developmental and psychological needs of the child. Both need to be aware of and put aside their own agenda, i.e. it would be helpful for [Mother] to lower her expectation on [Father], and [Father] to lower his guard and handle his grievances towards [Mother], in order to fully attend to [the Child’s] needs. Seeking help from mediator, parenting coordinator or counselor to help resolve their differences and to facilitate their decision making could be considered.”

(emphasis in bold added)

33.  The same sentiment was expressed by SWO in the Updated SIR:

“28. … With the interim access order made on 8 February 2022 and that varied on 12 May 2022, the disputes of the parents on access were greatly narrowed down. With respect to the previous struggle in child exchange of access, the parents were encouraged to let go their unresolved marital conflict and establish effective direct communication with each other so as to facilitate them in working out appropriate arrangements for [the Child] continuously in the future for co-parenting purpose and the best interest of the child.”

“30. … The investigating officer appeals to the parents’ further peaceful cooperation that allows a flexible access arrangement in order to match the changing needs of [the Child] in different developmental stages.”

(emphasis in bold added)

34.  By now, both parties have attended co-parenting course. In their testimony at the trial, they have expressed their views and feeling on topics relating to their communication problem, for example, Father’s tone and attitude towards Mother, and the use of Chinese by Mother in text messages after Father complained that Mother’s English is not good. It is hoped that the parties would have a better understanding of the other side’s concerns and feeling in these matters, and would be able to establish a more effective mode of communication on matters relating to the Child.

35.  The Court was informed at the beginning of the trial that a parental coordinator was appointed. It is expected that the parental coordinator will assist the parties in their communication with respect to the welfare of the Child. Nonetheless, the parties’ efforts and ability to establish an effective communication remains vital for the growth of the Child, and is one of the factors to consider in determining the Child’s care and access.

D5.  Staying access

36.  In terms of staying access, the Clinical Psychologist’s view is that:

“27. Regarding the staying access, given the developmental stage and easy temperament of [the Child], he demonstrates the ability to have more staying access with the father. Noted that the staying access is believed to be beneficial only when the parents are able to communicate effectively and work together for the easier adjustment of [the Child] between homes, e.g. maintaining consistent and predictable routines within and between households; responding to the child’s emotional needs by offering comfort and soothing, particularly, an environment that is free of parental tension. When [the Child] shows better adjustment between homes and has stronger bonding with the father, a gradual step up of staying access is recommended.”

(emphasis in bold added)

37.  Given the young age of the Child, a 3 consecutive days staying access is considered by the Clinical Psychologist to be aggressive. She opined that when a child is young, frequent day access is generally better than staying access. Normally, an elder child can tolerate better with separation with primary carer. The SWO considered that it is normally not suitable for a child under 3 years old to have more than 3 consecutive nights staying access.

38.  I find Father’s proposal of having 3 consecutive nights staying access in Christmas 2022, 4 consecutive nights staying access in Chinese New Year in 2023, 5 consecutive nights staying access over Easter holiday in 2023 and 6 to 7 consecutive nights staying access during 2023 summer holiday is aggressive and inappropriate.

39.  Time is needed for the Child to adjust a new environment and a new pattern of routine with the non-primary carer. Any change has to be carefully considered with reference to the Child’s temperament and adjustment as well as the effectiveness of the parents’ communication and flexibility in accommodating the needs of the Child. Father’s proposal does not allow sufficient time for the Child’s adjustment, nor for a review of the Child’s reaction to the change. It is also contrary to the experts’ opinion on the suitable duration of staying access for a young child.

D6.  Support from paternal grandmother

40.  The Child’s attachment with the paternal grandmother and her support helps in building up the father-son relationship and may help the Child’s adjustment at Father’s home.

41.  The significance of Father’s role in taking care of the Child and his interaction with the Child cannot be overlooked. The Clinical Psychologist reminded the importance of “skin to skin” interaction with the Child who is at such a young age. I agree.

D7.  Father’s travel

42.  Father needs to travel overseas for business. The Clinical Psychologist warned that frequent travels away from Hong Kong is not conducive to the building up of father-son relationship. When someone is “out of sight”, he will be “out of mind”. The Child needs “skin to skin” interaction.

43.  Father proposed that the access arrangements be maintained while he travels outside Hong Kong in order to keep a consistent routine for the Child. The Child will be taken care of by paternal grandmother who will facilitate video access with Father.

44.  Mother agreed that the Child may continue to visit paternal grandmother for lunch or dinner or even during Father’s regular access time. However, she considered that there shall not be staying access when Father is not in Hong Kong.

45.  The arrangement for video access would maintain a regular contact between Father and the Child when Father is not in Hong Kong. Given the young age of the Child, the duration of video access should not be long. According to the experts, around 5 minutes is appropriate, and each call should not be longer than 15 minutes. I agree.

46.  The roles of Father and the paternal grandmother are different. There is no evidence on the frequency and duration of travels that Father is likely to have in the coming years. Assuming Father’s overseas travel will be occasional, I am prepared to make an order to allow access at the home of Father’s parents during Father’s travel save that there shall be no staying access, and the Child shall be returned to Mother’s residence by 8 pm. Video access with Father during this period is to be facilitated by paternal grandmother at her residence. This arrangement will be reviewed 12 months later.

D8.  Child’s participation in paternal family traditions

47.  Father asked for access to allow the Child’s participation in paternal family traditions, including dinners and ceremonies on specified days. I do not see Mother has any objection in principle.

D9.  Shared care

48.  Co-parenting is the goal encouraged by the SWO. The Clinical Psychologist considered it ideal if the parties and the Child can achieve the same. The parties agreed to work towards building a co-parenting relationship as a goal.

49.  Counsel for Father, Mr Azan Marwah submitted that this is a case of parallel parenting and is apt for a shared care order. Mr Marwah referred to S, V v M, S [2020] HKFC 197 [17] where the following passages in PJM v GPN (FCMC 4999/2014, [2018] HKFC 65) on the topic of shared care order was cited:

“14. Given that the parties are agreed that they shall have joint custody I intend in this judgement to concentrate on the terms care and control and shared care. I touched upon this in SEB v ZX (Custody) [2007] HKFLR 165 and in SKP v Y, ITT (Legal Terminology to be Used in Relation to Children’s Arrangements) [2012] HKFLR 422. In the latter, I said as follows when discussing the concept of joint care and control and shared care:

Joint care and control

21. Consequently, joint care and control denotes a situation where the parties are sharing the day to day practicalities of raising a child. It will normally mean that the child is spending significant periods of time with both parents in each of their homes, but not necessarily on a 50:50 basis. However, the time shared is likely to be more significant than in a standard custody/access type order and will probably mean that the child is spending at least 35% of his time based with each of this parents. One would expect that both parties are involved in the schooling and extracurricular activity schedule and it normally denotes a high level of co-operation between the parents. Consequently, one would normally expect an order for joint custody and joint care and control to be made by consent. In the language of the social scientists an order for joint custody and joint care and control would probably be reflective of a cooperative co-parenting scenario.

So how does this compare with the concept of shared care?

22. The concept of shared care as an alternative to joint care and control has developed over time. I referred to this recently in a case that may be going on appeal and is presently unreported namely TAC v VDC nee VDM FCMC 16497/2010. In that case I referred to H v H (unreported, 6 September 2002, CACV 42 of 2002, where the Court of Appeal first upheld an order for shared care. This judgment has been referred to by counsel for the father in this hearing. What is interesting is that in that case an order was made for sole custody and shared care. This approach was then followed by myself in SEB v ZX (Custody) [2007] HKFLR 165 referred to above and more recently in RWS v KCC, FCMC 9661 of 2010 unreported. In each of these cases and for a variety of different reasons it was felt appropriate for the ultimate decision making power to vest in only one parent. Thus orders were made for sole custody. However, the court was anxious to ensure that the child/ren involved should continue to spend significant amounts of time with both parents in a way that was more reminiscent of a joint care and control order. In order to recognise this and the fact that the non-custodial parent continues to have a great deal of practical control in the child’s day to day life, the phrase shared care was coined. Again in social science terms this is perhaps more reflective of a parallel parenting regime i.e. where there is a very high level of conflict between the parents which makes cooperative co-parenting virtually impossible, but where it is in the child/ren’s best interests to spend significant periods of time with both parents. It would be normal in a situation like that to set out very clearly how the child/ren’s time is to be split between both parents. There is no order for access per se. I made such an order in RWS v KCC, FCMC 9661 of 2010 commenting as I did that:

‘I have given a great deal of thought to the appropriate order to be made in this case. As I have said it is not possible for me to make a “parallel parenting” order as such. However, I would like to make an order that supports the concept of parallel parenting. Consequently, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to make an order for shared care as opposed to a traditional order for care and control and access. This will make no difference at all to the practical arrangements that I intend to put in place. They would have been the same in either event. However, the concept of shared care seems to me to echo that of parallel parenting and I would urge the parties to adopt that approach … I will therefore make an order for shared care, following the format of the order in H v H i.e. that the care of the children shall be shared between the parents as follows:

[Detailed arrangements were then set out accordingly.]

A similar approach will be taken in this case.”

50.  I agree with the SWO and the Clinical Psychologist that the parties and the Child have not yet reached the stage suitable for a 50/50 care arrangements. I do not consider a shared care order shall be granted in this case.

51.  The growth of the Child at his age can be very rapid. His needs may vary in a short period of time. In the case where the parties’ cannot establish an effective communication, a longer term arrangement without flexibility is unlikely to match the Child’s developmental and psychological needs.

52.  The Clinical Psychologist considered that when the Child has good adjustment, there is good communication between the parties with minimum stress caused to the Child, and the Child developed relative equal attachment with Father and Mother, the parties can start discussing shared residence and/or 50/50 care arrangements. Usually, 50/50 care arrangement is more appropriate when a child starts primary school, or at the age of around 8 and 9.

53.  The Child is 2 ½ years old. Mother is his main attachment figure. The weekly 1 night staying access only started in late October 2022. There was a 2 consecutive nights staying access in Christmas 2022. It is yet to see how the Child get adjusted.

54.  I have not lost sight of the evidence of both parties on their conduct during marriage and after separation. Many of these evidence is contested. I do not intend to repeat them. I do not consider the finding of these disputed facts would make a difference on my decision. During cross examination, the SWO was asked whether she will maintain her recommendation if Mother has not been honest with her about the care of the Child, for example she was not a full time mother. The SWO said that she trusted Mother’s words. Even if Mother has not been honest with her in these matters, she maintained her recommendation because she placed more emphasis on the Child’s behaviour and emotion gathered from her observation.

55.  I further invite the parties to focus more on the welfare and care of the Child, and less in the legal label which would have no significant bearing in the welfare of the Child.

E.  ORDER

56.  I order that Father has the following access with the Child:

(1)  Term time day access:

(a)  if the Child is attending an afternoon class at school, every Monday and Wednesday from 10 am to 1 pm;

(b)  if the Child is transferred to a morning class at school, every Monday and Wednesday from after school to 4pm.

(2)  Term time staying access: Weekly staying access from Saturday 10 am to Sunday 10 am.

(3)  Long holiday access:

(a)  Ching Ming Festival and Easter (4 April to 16 April 2023:

(i)  2 consecutive nights staying access from 4 April 2023 at 10 am to 6 April 2023 at 10 am;

(ii)  2 consecutive nights staying access from 9 April 2023 at 10 am to 11 April 2023 at 8 pm

(iii)  1 night staying access from 14 April 2023 at 10 am to 15 April 2023 at 3 pm.

(b)  Summer holidays (16 July to 31 August 2023):

(i)  Subject to the access arrangement on the Child’s birthday in sub-paragraph (6) below, summer holidays to be shared on an equal basis with changeover to take place to enable staying access of not more than 3 consecutive nights in July, and staying access of not more than 4 consecutive nights in August.

(ii)  The handover time is at 10 am on the first day and 10 am on the last day unless the parties agree otherwise. The exact dates are to be agreed between the parties with the assistance of parental coordinator.

(c)  Christmas 2023/ New Year 2024 and Chinese New Year 2024: to be shared between the parties on an equal basis. Details to be agreed by the parties with the assistance of the parental coordinator.

(4)  Single day public holidays other than Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festival (i.e. Labour Day, Buddha’s Birthday, Dragon Boat Festival, HKSAR Establishment Day, Day after Mid-Autumn Festival, National Day of the PRC for 2023/2024): these are to be shared between Father and Mother on an alternate basis, with exact arrangements to be agreed by the parties with the assistance of parental coordinator. Father’s access time is from 10 am to 8 pm.

(5)  Parent’s birthday:

(a)  If Father’s birthday falls on a school day, access from after school until 8pm.

(b)  If Father’s birthday falls on a non-school day and not one of Father’s access days, access from 10 am to 8 pm.

(c)  If Mother’s birthday falls on a date of Father’s access, Father’s access on that day is cancelled with no made up.

(6)  Child’s birthday: in 2023 and all odd years thereafter, Father has access of the Child on his birthday; in 2024 and all even years thereafter, the Child will spend his birthday with Mother.

(7)  Father’s day: Father has access from 10 am to 8 pm.[9]

(8)  Ching Ming festival and Chung Yeung festival: Father has access from 10 am to 8 pm.

(9)  Paternal family traditions (i.e. attendance of village ceremony in Yuen Long, and a village dinner on 初十五 in January / February and天后誕 in April): Father has time with the Child for participation in these events provided that not less 7 days advance notice of the details be given by Father to Mother.

(10)  Travel time access:

(a)  If Father is not in Hong Kong during access time but paternal grandmother is in Hong Kong, the Child spends the usual access time at the residence of Father’s parents until 8 pm of the day. Father has video access with the Child of not more than 15 minutes each at the residence of Father’s parents to be facilitated by paternal grandmother. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no staying access during the time when Father is not in Hong Kong.

(b)  If Father and paternal grandmother are not in Hong Kong, Father has video access facilitated by Mother not more than 4 times per day, and not more than 15 minutes for each video access.

(c)  For the avoidance of doubt, there is no made up access on the days when Father travels outside of Hong Kong.

(11)  Made up access: subject to the above, if Father’s access is cancelled, the parties shall agree on the reasonable dates and time for made up access with the assistance of parental coordinator.

(12)  Pick up and Drop off arrangement: same as paragraph 5 of the Order dated 30 September 2022.

57.  The access arrangement is to be reviewed after 12 months. There be a supervision order for 12 months. An updated social investigation report be lodged into the court on or before the expiry of the 11^th month of the supervision order.

58.  This is a matter concerning a child’s welfare. I make no order as to costs on a nisi basis. Variation application shall be made within the next 14 days, otherwise, the above order will become absolute at the expiration of 14 days. Mother’s own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.