|
FCMC 1397 / 2024
[2026] HKFC 114
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
NO. 1397 OF 2024
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
A, OY |
Petitioner
(Mother) |
| |
and |
|
| |
A, REJ |
Respondent
(Father) |
________________________
| Coram: |
Deputy Judge Robin Egerton in Chambers (Not Open to Public) |
| Trial: |
10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 March 2026 |
| Closing Submissions: |
13 and 14 April 2026 |
| Handing down Judgment: |
29 June 2026 |
_______________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Custody, Access and Child Maintenance
_______________________________________
A. Introduction
1. The Mother was born in China in May 1997 and is now aged 28; the Father was born in France in December 1994 and is now aged 31. The Parties met in 2018 in Hong Kong and married in Hong Kong in March 2019. Their son “C” was born on 2 December 2021 in Hong Kong.
2. From 4 April 2022 to 9 October 2022 the Parents and C lived in France, thereafter in Hong Kong. From 27 November 2023 until 16 January 2024 the Father and C lived in France whilst the Mother remained in Hong Kong. On 16 January 2024 the Father returned to Hong Kong with C, however, on 25 January 2024 the Father left Hong Kong with C.
3. The Mother filed her Petition for divorce in February 2024. Following proceedings commenced by the Mother in France, on 4 July 2024 the Nanterre Judicial Tribunal applying the Hague Convention, ordered C’s return to Hong Kong on the basis that:
(1) C was wrongfully removed from Hong Kong by the Father
(2) C’s habitual residence is Hong Kong
(3) The provision of the Article 13(b) defence (serious harm) had not been established
4. C returned with the Mother to Hong Kong on 9 July 2024, the Father remained in France.
5. Since January 2024 the Father has visited Hong Kong on the following occasions:
(1) 18 to 24 May 2025 (the child maintenance hearing)
(2) 9 to 20 March 2026 (the current trial)
6. In August 2025 the Father’s parents visited Hong Kong and saw C.
7. On the 8 November 2024 a decree nisi of divorce was pronounced.
8. The Order of the 28 January 2025 contains the following recitals:
(1) Neither Party has a claim for ancillary relief against the other
(2) The Father does not dispute the Mother being granted C’s care and control
9. The Consent Order of 20 May 2025 states the Father is to pay C’s interim maintenance of HK$11,000 per month from 1 June 2025; however it became apparent at the end of the Trial that the Order of 20 May 2025 was not by Consent and the interim figure of HK$11,000 was determined by the Court after argument.
10. At the close of the Trial the Parties agreed and it was directed that Closing Submissions would be lodged and exchanged by each Party on 13 April 2026, both Parties accordingly filed their respective Closing Submissions.
11. On the 14 April 2026 the Mother’s Counsel wrote to the Court as Annex C to her Closing had in error been omitted. By correspondence the Father objected to the Wife’s request.
12. Annex C was intended to be part of the Wife’s Closing Submissions; it was lodged one day late.
13. I accept the Mother’s Counsel’s explanation and accordingly give leave that Annex C attached the Mother Counsel’s letter of 14 April 2026 shall form part of the Mother’s Closing Submissions.
B. The Parents’ and C’s current circumstances
The Mother’s current circumstances
14. The Mother lives in Hong Kong with her grandmother, Madam GM who is aged 65 and in good health. The Mother is employed as a pastry chef with a net income of HK$18,525 per month.
The Father’s current circumstances
15. The Father resides in France living at 18 Rue Des Roncieux, 95340 Bernes-Sur-Oise with his parents, and works as part-time Chef; he states his current net income to be €1,250 (HK$11,800) per month.
C’s current circumstances
16. C was born in Hong Kong on 2 December 2021; holds both a Hong Kong and French passport which expire respectfully on 1 March 2027 and 10 May 2027.
17. C lives with the Mother and Madam GM at Flat B, 11th Floor, Beach 10, Yuet Wu Villa, 2 Wu San Street, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong.
18. C attends K1 at WFB Manta Institute Nursery School (“WFB Nursery School) from 8:30am to 4:30 pm; which is approximately a 13 minutes walk from home. C can remain at WFB Nursery School through K2 and K3 but will be required to change school when he starts Primary School in September 2028.
19. C speaks English and Chinese; recentlyhe has been attending French lessons on Saturday morning from 11:00am to 12:30pm; the Father’s Mother pays for these lessons.
20. The current access arrangements are as follows:
(1) By the Order of 18 April 2024 the Father is to have supervised access to C
(2) By agreement between the Parties the Father has video access to C 5 days a week
C. Applications before the Court
21. This Trial, which has been conducted in two parts over 5 days, relates to the following issues:
(1) Whether the Parents should have the joint custody of C or whether the Mother should have sole custody
(2) What should be the access arrangements in particular the Father’s staying access to C and whether such access is only in Hong Kong
(3) What should be the child maintenance arrangements
22. I propose to first consider custody and access and thereafter child maintenance.
D. Applicable Law relating to custody and access
23. There is no dispute as to the applicable law namely Section 3 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance.
24. The general principles are set out in s.3 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance, Cap.13 (“the GMO”), which state that:
(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;”
25. In addition to which I have been helpfully referred to a number of authorities, I do not propose to recite all the authorities:
(1) The seminal authority of PD v KWW (Child: joint custody) [2010] 4 HKLRD 191 and in particular:
“30. At a practical level, a convenient way of understanding the two concepts is to compare the nature of the decision-making that is required to put them into practice.
31. The decisions to be made by a custodial parent are those of real consequence in safeguarding and promoting the child's health, development and general welfare. They include decisions as to whether or not the child should undergo a medical operation, what religion the child should adhere to, what school the child should attend, what extracurricular activities the child should pursue, be it learning a musical instrument or being coached in a sport. A parent vested with custody has the responsibility of acting as the child's legal representative.
32. By contrast, the decisions to be made by a parent who (at any time) has care and control of the child are of a more mundane, day-to-day nature, decisions of only passing consequence in themselves but cumulatively of importance in moulding the character of the child. They include a host of decisions that arise out of the fact that the parent has physical control of the child and the responsibility of attending to the child's immediate care. They include decisions as to what the child will wear that day, what the child may watch on television, when the child will settle down to homework and when the child will go to bed. They also include the authority to impose appropriate discipline.”
(2) SEB v ZX (custody) [2007] HKFLR 165 at [101], where HHJ Melloy stated the following upon referring to the case of ML v YJ (unrep., HCMC 13/2006, Recorder Rimsky Yuen SC, 23 May 2007):
“It seems to me that Recorder Rimsky Yuen SC has correctly stated the test to be adopted when determining the issue of joint versus sole custody. Clearly here the parents have not historically been able to co-operate at any level. Schooling was a particular bone of contention. As Rimsky Yuen pointed out “If there is no reasonable prospect of co-operation between the parties, an order for joint custody can be a recipe for disaster and contrary to the best interests of the child”. I agree. I accept that a joint custody order may be appropriate in some cases, where it provides a suitable framework for future co-operation. Unfortunately I agree with the father’s counsel that this is not one of those cases. “The time is not now”. It may however be a possibility in the future. I will grant the father sole custody of the boys.” (emphasis underlined)
26. It is with these principles and guidance in mind that I approach the issues of custody and access.
E. The Parents’ Opening Positions
27. The Mother’s proposal :
(1) The Mother seeks sole custody of C with care and control as previously agreed and reflected in the order 28 January 2025. She undertakes as follows:
“she will consult and discuss with the Father before she make a final decision to enrol the child of the family namely, C, a boy born on 2 December 2021 (“the Child”) in a different school, extra-curricular activities, or tuitions, or before making non-emergency medical decisions. She further undertakes to respond to the Father’s reasonable inquiries regarding the Child’s major welfare decisions within a reasonable time.”
(2) The Mother proposed defined access as follows:
(i) All access with C shall take place in Hong Kong until further order or as mutually agreed.
(ii) The Parties shall equally share C’s long school holidays.
(iii) For the Father ½ of the long school holidays, staying access in Hong Kong for the 1st long school holiday with 1 night staying access, and the 2nd long school holiday with 2 nights staying access. From the 3rd long school holiday onwards with 3 nights at most, or as mutually agreed. Any remaining access of the Father’s ½ share of the long school holiday to be by way of day access from 9 am to 9 pm, or as mutually agreed.
(iv) Special dates of the long school holidays such as 25-26 December of Christmas holidays and CNY eve to 1st day of CNY shall be alternated by the parties.
(v) In the event of the Father is in Hong Kong during C’s school term, he shall have day access after school / ECAs to 8pm, or as mutually agreed.
(vi) The Father shall pick up and drop off C at the lobby of the Mother’s residence, or as mutually agreed.
(vii) When the Father does not have defined access to C, he shall have video access 3 days a week (on Monday, Wednesday and Friday) for no more than 15 minutes per call commencing at 6pm HKT.
28. The Father’s proposal :
(1) The Father seeks joint custody with care and control to the Mother
(2) In his affirmation of 18 December 2025, the Father stated:
“5. I request joint custody of C, in consideration of his well-being and emotional needs. I also seek regular visitation rights and equitable access to C. I propose the following visitation arrangements, which will allow C to maintain a strong and continuous relationship with both parents:
a. Two weeks during the winter holidays.
b. Two weeks during the spring holidays.
c. A minimum of four weeks during the summer holidays.
6. During my trips to Hong Kong, I request to have custody of C, both day and night, and, if necessary, to take him to his activities or school. The Mother will, when I have custody of C, be entitled to the same rights.
7. Regarding the travel expenses for C to visit the other parent, I propose that the cost of the plane tickets be shared equally between the Mother and me. The proposed arrangements are as follows:
8. If C stays with me, I will cover the cost of the outbound flight, and I will pick him up from the mother for the trip.
9. If C stays with the mother, she will cover the cost of the outbound flight, and I will be responsible for the return flight.
10. I wish to emphasize that these arrangements are intended to ensure that C spends time with both parents while fairly sharing the costs and responsibilities related to travel.
11. When C is of an age where he can travel alone safely. The cost of the travel assistant will also be shared equally between the Mother and me.”
29. During the Trial on 11 March 2026 the Parents handed to the Court a Consent Summons as follows:
(1) The Mother be granted care and control of C
(2) In the event the Father is Hong Kong during C’s school term, he shall have day access after school or extra-curricular activities to 8pm, or as mutually agreed.
(3) Concerning all access, the Father shall pick up and drop off C at the lobby of the Mother’s residence, or as mutually agreed.
(4) When the Father does not have defined access to C, he shall have video access 4 days a week for no less than 20 minutes per call commencing at 6pm HKT, or as mutually agreed on variation of frequency or duration of each call.
(5) The Mother shall have reasonable video access during the Father’s defined access time.
30. The remaining issues of substance that fall to be determined are as follows:
(1) Joint or sole custody
(2) Access arrangements and in particular whether or not there should be overseas access in France
The Reports
31. There are three reports before the Court:
(1) The 1st Social Investigation Report dated 13 January 2025 prepared by Ms Yang Shui-king which stated:
“31. The Internation Social Services Report from HKISS would not be available at this moment. The information in the HKISS’s report is an essential reference for the custody, the care and control as well as access arrangement of the child of the family in terms of the father’s living environment, the financial condition, the school, and his family support in France. In this connection, the Investigating Officer could not make a comprehensive assessment, and no recommendation could be made at the present stage.”
(2) The International Social Service Report dated 24 January 2025 which concluded with the following remarks:
“In view of these factors and in the interests of the child, we propose:
Ø A favourable decision for the Father for permanent residence, custody and accommodation rights for the child C at his father’s home.
Ø A rapprochement with the Maison Départementale des Solidarités, the departmental service responsible for local child protection, to ensure continuity of overall care (medical, social, etc.).
Ø It would also be important to involve the departmental child protection services, in particular the local social services departmental and the PMI (Child Protection Service).”
(3) The 2nd Social Investigation Report dated 3 May 2025 also prepared by Ms Yang who, inter alia, made the following statements in her report:
“16. C played closely with the toy blocks alongside his mother, creating a warm and living atmosphere.
17. Observations indicated that C had spontaneous interactions with his father, reflecting a close relationship between the father and his child.
….
21. Regarding the access arrangement, the Mother stated that no matter who her child lives with, he should not lose the connection and love of the other parent. She agreed that the father could visit the son regularly via video calls or text messages, as well as meet him during the day if the father visited the boy in Hong Kong. However, she disagreed that the child should visit the father in France.
….
23. Concerning the care and custody of the child, the Father initially thought he and his parents could provide quality care for his child in France. From a gender perspective, he believed it would be more suitable for his son to be under his care. Later, he considered it more beneficial for the son’s development to maintain stable care arrangements, schooling, and a living environment in Hong Kong. He would respect the mother’s choice and simply requested updated conditions for the son. Regarding the access arrangement, he requested reasonable access to the child via regular video calls and the flexibility to meet him when he visited the boy in Hong Kong. He would also like to have overnight access, with the son spending holidays with him and his family in France.”
(4) The 2nd Social Investigation Report concluded as follows:
“29. The child’s need for regular access to the non-resident parent following parental separation is considered essential to help maintain their bond. Regarding the access arrangement, both parents agreed that the child requires consistent contact with the non-resident parent. Currently, the father has indirect access to C through video calls five times a week, each lasting about 30 minutes with the assistance of the mother or the great maternal grandmother which is considered insufficient for building the father-son relationship.
30. Taking into consideration of the above factors, for the best interest of the child, I would like to recommend the following custody, care and control as well as the access arrangement of the child of the family, for Your Honour’s consideration:
(i) The Mother be granted the sole custody of the child, C;
(ii) The Mother be granted the care and control of the child;
(iii) For long school holidays including Christmas, Chinese New Year, Easter and Summer Holidays, the child could spend half of the holidays with the Mother and half with the Father, and any variation is subject to mutual agreement and both parties’ consent;
(iv) All pick-up and drop off points at the Mother’s abode or to be agreed between the parties;
(v) Reasonable video access of C be granted to both parties during the stay with the non-residing parent.”
F. The evidence
32. Ms Yang gave oral evidence confirming the contents of her two Reports. She was cross examined by Ms Toh on behalf of the Mother; the Father did not ask her any questions.
33. In her answers to Ms Toh’s questions she inter alia stated:
“Q. So, based on what you’ve seen today, do you still – do you maintain that the sole custody should be given to the mother?
A. For the time being, I maintain this recommendation.
Q. Okay. So, in terms of her proposals, you can see that she says access should take place in Hong Kong. As you’re aware, based on your investigation and what you’ve seen today, do you agree that the level of trust between the parents are very low, based on the history of this case?
A. Not desirable, but I don’t think it’s low.
Q. Well, the child is only 4 right now, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it takes time to rebuild trust, correct?
A. Agree.
Q. And the father, he is a French national.
A. Yes.
Q. Right, he lives in France.
A. Yes.
Q. Works in France.
A. Yes.
Q. As a French national, he can work and live in any other EU member state country, correct?
A. Agree.
Q. And the way in which – or at least the French courts have decided that the father had to return the child to Hong Kong. Do you agree it is not appropriate at this stage for overseas access given all of the matters taken in a cumulative manner?
A. For the time being, my opinion is that they can try.
Q. How?
A. It’s because from what I saw, most of the time the father, for example, he returned the child to Hong Kong because based on the order, and he was cooperative in view of the order given by the French court. So I believe if the father is given a chance to take the child to France for a holiday, he will promise to return the child to Hong Kong according to the terms stated in the order of the court.
Q. Who told you it was the father who returned the child and not the mother?
A. I clarify what I just said. It was the father who consented that the mother to return the child from France to Hong Kong.
Q. Have you considered the logistical difficulties, first of all, for a child that is 4 years old to have access overseas and that there is a genuine and real risk the father, if he has the child, would not return the child back to Hong Kong? Do you agree?
A. I think even there is such a risk. It doesn’t mean that the father should not be given a chance or an opportunity to have such an access arrangement.
Q. If I take you – well, first of all, as you’ve said, there is a risk. I’m saying there is a genuine and real risk. Do you agree or disagree?
A. There is a chance that this will happen.”
The Mother’s oral evidence
34. The Mother confirmed the contents of her affirmations and informed the Court of the access arrangements that had been agreed with the Father whilst he is in Hong Kong for the Trial :
(1) After school from 4:30pm to 8pm
(2) Staying access from 9am Saturday to 8pm on Sunday
35. It was difficult to form an impression from the Mother’s oral evidence as it was short by reason of no cross examination by the Father.
36. I have therefore carefully reflected on the Mother’s written evidence in particular her statement in her 1st affirmation dated 8 March 2024:
“Although our marriage had broken down irretrievably, I have C’s best interests at heart and am willing to co-parent with the Father as long as he can show the Court and I that he is willing to keep his promises and act in C’s best interests as a Father. Surreptitiously removing C from Hong Kong without my agreement was not and can never be in his best interest.”
and what the Mother told Ms Yang:
“Regarding the access arrangement, the Mother stated that no matter who her child lives with, he should not lose the connection and love of the other parent.”
37. Considering the Mother’s written evidence and the Social Investigation Reports I consider that the Mother recognises and will promote the Father’s relationship with C and C’s relationship with the Father. As an illustration she and the Father were able to agree access arrangements during the Father’s time in Hong Kong during the Trial including unsupervised and staying access.
38. It is however clear that the Mother has the greatest concern in relation to overseas access by reason of the Father’s wrongful removal C from Hong Kong. In addition she has difficulty trusting the Father when he has failed to pay the child maintenance as ordered by the Court.
39. My overall impression of the Mother is that, notwithstanding the circumstances of the Hague proceedings, the Mother recognises the importance of the Father’s role in C’s upbringing and development and is clearly focused on C’s best interests. Importantly and significantly, the Mother’s approach is recognised and respected by the Father not only in his written but also his oral evidence.
The Father’s oral evidence
40. The focus of much of the cross examination of the Father related to the unhappy past events in particular January 2024 leading to these proceedings and the Hague proceedings in France.
41. I understand much of the Mother’s case for sole custody centred on the fact the Father wrongfully removed C from Hong Kong and that there was, from her perception, a real risk that he would not return C to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong in the event overseas access is granted.
42. My overall impression of the Father was that:
(1) He wished to focus on the future and to work with the Mother as co-parents of C
(2) He was not critical of the Mother as a mother
43. It is relevant to note that he informed Ms Yang that :
“Later, he considered it more beneficial for the son’s development to maintain stable care arrangements, schooling, and a living environment in Hong Kong.”
44. In proceedings of this nature when a parent is seeking joint custody they are often reluctant to accept the other parent has sole care and control. The Father’s acceptance that C should live with the Mother in Hong Kong is a constructive basis for future co-parenting; just as is the Mother’s emphasis on the importance of the Father in C’s life.
Decision of sole custody or joint custody
45. By reference to PDD v KWW decisions to be made by a custodial parent:
“are those of real consequence in safeguarding and promoting the child’s health, development and general welfare.”
46. By reference to SEB v ZX:
“If there is no reasonable prospect of co-operation believing the parties an order for joint custody can be a recipe for disaster and contrary to the best interests of the child”
47. Notwithstanding the previous wrongful removal of C by the Father, the Parents have and are demonstrating a level of co-operation consistent with joint custody for example agreeing that C having French lessons and the access arrangements in March 2026 including unsupervised and staying access with the Mother relaxing the terms of the Order of 18 April 2024 as to supervised access.
48. In the event both Parents were living in Hong Kong I anticipate the appropriate order might well be joint custody.
49. The reality however is that the Parents are not living in the same jurisdiction. I further consider notwithstanding the level of co-operation between the Parents, there remains a level of distrust which makes joint custody unworkable at present. I therefore consider on the current facts it is in the best interests of C that the Mother has sole custody.
Decision on Access
50. The Mother’s chronological approach to access is reflected in various parts of her written evidence.
51. In her 1st Form E dated 10 April 2024 at paragraph 6.1 she sought the following order:
“The Child be returned to Hong Kong and shall not be removed from Hong Kong without leave until he attains the age of 18 years old but provided that if the Respondent do give a general undertaking to the court to return the Child to Hong Kong when called upon to do so, and unless otherwise directed with the written consent of the Petitioner, the Respondent may remove the Child from Hong Kong for any period specified in such written consent;”
In her evidence in chief, the Mother said that she “disagreed” with such statement.
52. In her Form J dated 7 August 2024, shortly after her return to Hong Kong with C, she stated:
“School holidays in Hong Kong typically span approximately two weeks, whereas the summer break lasts for about two months. Two arrangements will depend on whether the Father stays in Hong Kong or France. All access in Hong Kong should be supervised until further order.
I am open to organizing a family day in Hong Kong if the Father either stays in Hong Kong or visiting.
Traveling to France during those two-week holidays may not be practical. However, should the Father’s family be open to visiting Hong Kong, I am more than happy to arrange C to send with them during the day when the Father has access.
During the summer holiday, I may be able to bring C to France and can arrange for him to spend approximately 2-3 weeks with the Father’s family. I will participate in all their activities to ensure that C is not left with the Father without my presence at any time. At the moment, I am not comfortable with the Father taking C alone until we can rebuild trust, but I am open to revisiting this arrangement when C gets older. Costs for flights and accommodation will have to be shared equally between the Father and me. With my 12 days of annual leave plus 8 to 10 days off each month, it is feasible to arrange a 3-week vacation during the summers.”
53. In her 2nd Form E dated 27 August 2025 she stated:
“The Child shall not be removed from Hong Kong without leave until he attains the age of 18 years old but provided that if the Respondent do give a general undertaking to the Court to return the Child to Hong Kong when called upon to do so, and unless otherwise directed with the written consent of the Petitioner, the Respondent may remove the Child from Hong Kong for any period specified in such written consent;”
In her evidence in chief she said such evidence was “no longer valid, not applicable in this situation”.
54. From the above evidence it is apparent that the Mother was not in principle against C travelling to France and the Father having access in France but that the arrangements would need to be detailed and trust rebuilt.
55. In his affirmation of 31 January 2026 in relation to access the Father stated:
“1. That a shared care and custody arrangement be put in place, so as to ensure that C maintains a balanced, stable, and meaningful relationship with both parents;
2. That my access and contact with C be increased accordingly;
3. That both parents be required to exercise joint parental responsibility and joint decision-making authority in respect of all major matters concerning C, including but not limited to his education, healthcare, and general welfare;
4. That the confidentiality and privacy of video and electronic communications between C and myself be protected and not interfered with;
5. That C’s dual nationality be recognised, and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure his registration with the French Consulate/Embassy;
6. That C be permitted to attend an international school, in order to support his educational, cultural, and personal development;
7. That C be permitted to spend school holidays and other vacation periods with his father in France, as well as during travel to Hong Kong, including overnight stays;
8. That C be allowed to see me freely and without obstruction, restriction, or undue interference during his stays in Hong Kong;
9. That the issue of child maintenance be reviewed and adjusted having regard to my actual financial means and earning capacity;
10. That all arrangements be directed towards providing a calm, constructive, and forward-looking environment that promotes C’s overall well-being.
56. The Mother emphasised the following in her Closing submission:
“26. C’s safety is paramount. W respectfully urges the Court to err on the side of caution and not to allow overseas access at this stage. H must show the Court that he is trustworthy and will comply with court orders, and so far he has not. This will take times. C is only 4 years old. There is not urgency for him to have overseas access at this stage, especially when H has 5 weeks holidays per annum and can return to HK for access, and while W has been cooperative with access by H and his parents.
27. W submits that H is a flight risk and has no ties (whether it is familial or financial) in HK.
43 …. H and W are free to discuss about overseas holiday arrangements amongst themselves and/or at mediation when the time is right. It is inappropriate and not in C’s best interest at this stage to grant overseas access to H.
44 W refers to paras 3(2) to (4) of her Open Proposals. She maintains her proposals therein and adds that on top of para 3(5) (ie., access during weekdays of school term intended for reasonable day access so long as it does not it interfere with C’s schooling, ECAs, studies and rest), in the event H is in HK during C’s school term, he shall have 1 night staying access during weekends from Saturday 9am to Sunday 8pm, or as mutually agreed.
45. Para 3(3) of her Open Proposal (access in HK during long school holidays) sets out the structure and number of staying access during each holiday. It is intended to gradually increase the number of staying access. W submits that it is in C’s best interest to gradually have more staying access in short blocs as he is still very young and it would be a big adjustment for C to be away from W who is his primary carer since July 2024.”
57. In his Closing Submissions the Father emphasised the following:
(a) Joint custody of C to both parents;
(b) A clear order providing that all expenses relating to C shall be borne on a fully equal contributory basis, with each party responsible for one half, on a continuing basis until his majority, without any automatic annual review mechanism, save by express agreement of the parties or further order of the Court;
(c) That all costs relating to the divorce and the personal proceedings of each party shall remain the responsibility of the party incurring them;
(d) That C be registered in the French consular register so that he may fully benefit from his rights as a French and binational child;
(e) That the two parents cooperate so that, subject to the ordinary admission requirements, C may attend the Lycée Francais International de Hong Kong (LFI);
(f) That the school holidays be divided equally between the parents, with alternating years for Christmas and Chinese New Year, and that the travel costs during each parent’s holiday period be borne by that parent, save where expressly stated otherwise;
(g) That any measure applied to the father and his close family be applied equally to the mother and her close family, absent a concrete, serious and established risk concerning the child;
(h) That the access arrangements remain capable of development and may be reviewed if the Respondent’s situation changes in a way that is favourable to the child;
(i) That occasional psychological support may be put in place for C with a neutral and qualified professional;
(j) Any other order the Court considers necessary in C’s best interests.”
14. The current geographical distance between the parties does not, by itself, present joint parental decision-making on the fundamental matters of C’s life, provided that reasonable coordination at a distance remains possible.
18. In order to make joint custody fully workable notwithstanding the distance, the Respondent proposes the following protocol: any major decision shall be notified in writing to the other parent, who shall have 48 hours to respond. In the event of a continuing disagreement, the parties should first attempt mediation before any application is made to the Court.
19. The Respondent submits that there is no valid reason why he should be excluded from major decisions concerning his own son.
20. Joint custody is the fairest, most balanced, and most welfare-consistent solution for C.”
Access in Hong Kong
58. Having considered all the circumstances a Consent Order shall be made in terms of the Consent Summons lodged by the Parents on the 11 March 2026:
a) The Mother shall have the care and control of C
b) In the event the Father is in Hong Kong during C’s school term, he shall have day access after school or extra-curricular activities to 8pm, or as mutually agreed.
c) Concerning all access, the Respondent shall pick up and drop off C at the lobby of the Mother’s residence, or as mutually agreed.
d) When the Father does not have defined access to C, he shall have video access 4 days a week for no less than 20 minutes per call commencing at 6pm HKT, or as mutually agreed on variation of frequency or duration of each call.
e) The Mother shall have reasonable video access during the Father’s defined access time
59. So far as the Father access in Hong Kong not covered by the Consent Summons of 11 March 2026 I propose to make an order broadly in terms of the Mother’s Open Proposals save that staying access shall be increased as set out below:
(1) The Parents shall equally share C’s long school holidays.
(2) For the Father ½ of the long school holidays, staying access in Hong Kong for the 1st long school holiday with 2 nights staying access, and the 2nd long school holiday with 3 nights staying access. From the 3rd long school holiday onwards with 4 nights, or as mutually agreed. Any remaining access of the Father’s ½ share of the long school holiday to be by way of day access from 9 am to 9 pm, or as mutually agreed.
(3) Special dates of the long school holidays such as 25-26 December of Christmas holidays and CNY eve to 1st day of CNY shall be alternated by the parties.
60. The Father’s term time staying access shall be:
(1) Until 31 October 2026 two night staying access from either after school on Friday until 9am on Sunday or from 6pm Saturday until Monday morning when he takes C to school
(2) From 1 January 2027
(i) In week one, three nights staying access from after school Friday until Monday morning when he takes C to school
(ii) In week two, two nights staying access from after school Wednesday until Friday morning when he takes C to school
Access in France
61. The Order of 10 July 2024 recorded the Parents’ confirmation, acknowledgement and agreement that Hong Kong is C’s Habitual Residence. In addition on the 15 and 16 July 2024 the Parents filed their respective undertaking to each other and the Court confirming Hong Kong is C’s Habitual Residence.
62. For avoidance of doubt I find as a fact that C’s Habitual Residence is Hong Kong.
63. Having considered the Parents’ evidence both written and oral, the Reports and oral evidence of Ms Yang Shui-King, I consider it is in C’s interests to have staying access to the Father and his extended family in France.
64. However, before access can take place in France a Mirror Order is to be obtained in France acknowledging that :
a) Hong Kong is C’s habitual residence
b) The Mother has the sole custody and care and control of C
65. So far as to the actual arrangements for access in France I propose to set out guidelines to assist the Parents reaching a consensus; I anticipate this process will be assisted by a mediator.
66. Staying access in France is to commence in 2027; initially on each occasion for a period of two to three weeks. This may require C to be absent from school either at the beginning or end of his school term. At his age I do not consider this will be detrimental to his schooling and in any event it is important that he stays with his Father and extended paternal family in France.
67. The Mother has proposed that initially she should accompany C when he travels to France. I consider this to be a sensible suggestion for at least C’s first visit to France in 2027; however this is not to be an obstacle to the Father’s access to C in France. In the event the Mother does not travel to France, the Father will collect and return C from and to Hong Kong.
68. Both Parties have proposed that the costs of C’s travel to and from France to be shared equally between them, I so order.
Child Maintenance
69. Having concluded that the arrangements for custody and access are as set out above I will consider the application for child maintenance.
The Applicable Law
70. Financial provision for child of the family are set out in Sections 5 and 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, in particular section 5(2):
“(2) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) an order that a party to the marriage shall make to such person as may be specified in the order for the benefit of a child of the family, or to such a child, such periodical payments and for such term as may be so specified;
(b) an order that a party to the marriage shall secure to such person as may be so specified for the benefit of such a child, or to such a child, to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments and for such term as may be so specified;
(c) an order that a party to the marriage shall pay to such person as may be so specified for the benefit of such a child, or to such a child, such lump sum as may be so specified.”
and section 7(2):
“(2) Without prejudice to subsection (3), it shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 5, 6 or 6A in relation to a child of the family and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say—
(a) the financial needs of the child;
(b) the income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child;
(c) any physical or mental disability of the child;
(d) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
(e) the manner in which he was being and in which the parties to the marriage expected him to be educated;
and so to exercise those powers as to place the child, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to the considerations mentioned in relation to the parties to the marriage in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), just to do so, in the financial position in which the child would have been if the marriage had not broken down and each of those parties had properly discharged his or her financial obligations and responsibilities towards him.
71. In her Opening Ms Toh on behalf of the Mother identified 8 issues to be determined:
(1) What is C’s monthly expenses
(2) What are the Mother’s and the Father’s monthly expenses
(3) Whether the alleged loans owed to the Father’s parents are genuine loans, and if they are loans, whether they are soft loans as the Father says a large portion of his monthly salary is used to repay loans owed to his parents
(4) What is the Father’s liability to pay taking into account his income, earning capacity, financial resources
(5) Whether there is financial non-disclosure by the Father. If so, whether the Court shall draw an adverse inference against the Father as to his ability to pay
(6) What is the Mother’s ability to pay taking into account the Mother’s income, earning capacity and financial resources
(7) How much should the Father pay for C’s maintenance
(8) If overseas access is granted to the Father, who is responsible for the travel expenses and what is the split
72. The respective positions of the Parties immediately prior to the Trial is summarised below.
73. The Mother is a Pastry Chef, her employment history is as follows:
(1) 21 December 2021 to October 2022: unemployed
(2) October 2022 to 14 January 2024: working part-time for Black Sheep
(3) December 2023 to July 2024: working part-time for Bakehouse
(4) 15 January 2024 to present date: working full-time for Black Sheep, 5 days per week on a roster from 8am to 6pm and earns HK$19,500 per month, which, after her employers’ MPF deduction provides a net salary of HK$18,525.
74. The Mother’s Form E dated 10 April 2024 provides the following information:
| (1) Asset sub-total |
HK$1,615.80 |
| (2) Total value of pensions |
HK$89,622.34 |
| Total |
HK$91,238.14 |
| (3) Less : Value of liabilities |
HK123,884.15 |
| Net Value |
HK$-32,646.01 |
75. Her Form E dated 27 August 2025 provides the following information:
| (1) Assets sub-total |
HK$74,178.73 |
| (2) Value of pensions |
HK$124,930.91 |
| Total |
HK$199,109.64 |
| (3) Less : Value of liabilities |
HK133,547.40 |
| Net Value |
HK$65,562.24 |
76. As stated above, the Mother’s income is HK$18,525 per month net of MPF deduction, her expenses as follows:
(1) General HK$3,992.00
(2) Personal HK$10,926.85 HK$14,918.85
Her personal expenses include entertainment/presents HK$1,500 and Holidays HK$1,670 a total of HK$3,170.
77. In the schedule of child expenses, the Mother calculates C currently monthly expenses as follows:
| (1) School fees (Full day K1 at WFB Mantra Institute Nursery School) |
HK$1,100 |
| (2) School related expenses |
HK$200 |
| (3) Extra-curricular activities
|
HK$1,648.36 |
| (i) Drawing classes $768.75/month
|
|
| (ii) Swimming lessons $879.61/month
|
|
| (iii) French lessons (paid by the Father’s Mother – covered by the Husband. The amount is unknown
|
|
| (4) School books and stationery |
HK$400 |
| (5) Medical / dental |
HK$500 |
| (6) Entertainment / presents |
HK$800 |
| (7) Holidays |
HK$1,500 |
| (8) Clothing / shoes |
HK$550 |
| (9) Insurance premia |
HK$980.19 |
| (i) AIA B631918451 (Critical illness and medical insurance) Annual premium |
|
| (ii) Annual premium as of 2025 is HK$11,762.24 / 12 |
|
| (10) Other Transport |
HK$550 |
| (11) Uniform |
HK$200 |
| (12) Others (wet wipes $60, creams $385) |
HK$445 |
| (13) General expenses – the child’s portion: |
HK$1,192 |
| Utilities (water, gas electricity, mobile phone, internet, Netflix and Disney+) |
|
| (14) Food |
HK$1,800 |
| (15) Household expenses |
HK$1,000 |
| (16) Personal expenses – the child’s portion |
HK$1,600 |
| Meals out of home |
|
| Total |
HK$14,466 |
| Rounded up to |
HK$14,500 |
78. Therefore the combined expenses of the Mother and C are HK$29,418.85 (HK$14,918.85 + HK$14,500). With her income of HK$18,525 there is a shortfall of HK$10,893.85, rounded up to HK$11,000.
79. Since the Order of 20 May 2025 the Father has been paying in the region of HK$4,500 month child maintenance. It is the Mother’s case that the outstanding child maintenance from 1 June 2025 to 1 March 2026 is HK$58,903.45.
80. The Mother said the shortfall was covered by her Mother / Family and that such financial assistance would need to repaid when the Father pays what he has been ordered to pay.
81. The Father’s Form E dated 23 April 2024 provides the following information:
| (1) Asset sub-total |
HK$6,922.2 |
| (2) Total value of pensions |
HK$110,368.78 |
| (3) Total |
HK$117,290.98 |
| (4) Less : Value of liabilities |
HK$231,604.27 |
| Net Value |
HK$-114,313.29 |
82. His employment history is set out in his 3rd affirmation dated 22 May 2025:
| “Dates |
Employer |
Position |
Income (Gross and Net Income) |
| 26 February 2024 to 15 July 2024 |
MR NET |
Order Picker |
Gross Income (as per contract dated 1 April 2024): EUR1,841
(approx. HKD15,597.17)
Net Income (Average for 6 months between Feb 2024 to Jul 2024): EUR1,131
(approx. HKD9,581.97)
|
| 5 August 2024 to 30 November 2024 |
SAS Even’Co |
Sous Chef |
Gross Income (as per contract dated 26 July 2024): EUR1,759.89
(approx.. HKD14,910)
Net Income (Average for 4 months between Aug 2024 to Nov 2024): EUR1,400.38
(approx. HKD11,864.19)
|
| 3 December 2024 to 31 December 2024 |
Sari Scarlett |
Sous Chef |
Gross Income (as per contract dated 3 December 2024): EUR3,123.38
(approx.. HKD26,461.65)
Net Income EUR2,297.52
(approx. HKD19,464.87)
|
| 21 January 2025 to Present |
L’Aventure |
Sous Chef |
Gross Income (as per contract dated 21 January 2025): EUR3,707.40
(approx.. HKD31,409.54)”
Net Income (February-March 2025) – EUR2,590.23
(approx. HKD21,939.85)
|
83. At paragraph 11 of the same affidavit the Father stated: “Since 21 January 2025, I have been working as a sous Chef for L’Aventure. This position represents an ideal employment opportunity, offering the highest remuneration I could possibly secure in France.”
84. By letter dated 28 March 2025 the Father’s employment trial period with L’Adventure was extended for a further 3 months until 20 July 2025.
85. His Form E dated 27 July 2025 provides the following information:
Part 2
| (1) Asset sub-total |
HK$0 |
| (2) Value of your pensions |
HK$122,532.01 |
| Total |
HK$122,532.01 |
| (3) Less : Value of liabilities |
HK$-481,232.32 |
| Net Value |
HK$-358,700.31 |
Part 4 : Expenses (excluding child maintenance)
| (1) General |
HK$8,024 |
of which HK$3,304 was itemised
as “HAYE & LOAN TO PARENTS” |
|
| (2) Personal |
HK$3,681 |
| Total |
HK$11,705 |
Paragraph 1.14:
“The father was ordered to pay 11,000HK$/month to the mother for the child’s interim maintenance but he can no longer pay this amount due to insufficient resources resulting from his change of job.”
Paragraph 5.5:
“Since then, my professional situation has evolved, and I have returned to my original field: culinary arts. Unfortunately, my previous employer was unable to keep me due to economic and financial difficulties. I therefore sought new employment and currently hold the position of Head Chef, with a gross monthly salary of approximately €1,500 (HKD14160) – corresponding to a net income of about €1,250 (HKD11800) after taxes.”
86. The Father changed his employer to “Dakan” (restaurant) at Place de L’englise Puteaux 92800 France with an income of €1,250 (HK$11,800) on 3 July 2025. He explained in oral evidence that Dakan, a small restaurant provided him with greater flexibility for communicating with C by video and unpaid leave to visit C in Hong Kong.
87. In the Agreed List of Disputed Issues the Mother proposed child maintenance of HK$11,000 per month and Father proposed child maintenance of HK$4,550 per month “subject to annual review, with any increase capped at a maximum of 10%”.
88. The focus of the respective cross examination was on the Mother’s claimed expenses for C and the Father’s income; the Parents’ Closing Submissions amplified such positions.
89. The Mother gave her evidence in a straight forward manner.
90. The Father’s evidence both written and oral was not entirely clear. He seemed to lack an appreciation of the seriousness of the Trial and the financial details with supporting documents which he was and is obliged to disclose together with the matters that had been raised by the Mother by questionnaire.
91. The Father’s repeated position was that:
(i) He did not accept C’s expenses as claimed by the Mother.
(ii) C’s expenses should be split equally between him and the Mother.
92. The Father has been acting in person since June 2025. In evidence he said his Mother had assisted him in the preparation of his case and documents to be filed in court.
93. In her Closing Submissions the Mother stated:
49. After the conclusion of the 3-day trial, W respectfully invites the Court to draw an adverse inference against H’s earning capacity and conclude that he has the ability to pay HK$11,000 per month as child maintenance since 1 June 2025 and going forward. Overall, H is not a credible witness by reason that he:
(1) is guilty, on his own admission, of non-disclosure of his income and finances.
(2) was misleading and was untruthful when he claimed that he had disclosed by email to W’s solicitors documents beyond his Form E dated 27.7.2025 (“2025 Form E”), and on his admission that he could not find his emails that support his allegation.
(3) was evasive when he claimed he couldn’t remember the details of, inter alia, his recent employment history, when he stopped working for L’Adventure and when he started working full-time for his current employer, Dakan. It took significant amount of time during cross-examination to obtain an answer to simple questions.
(4) gave incredible evidence about his income for working full-time with Dakan.”
94. The Father’s financial disclosure particular after his Form E of July 2025 and when he was then acting in person has been far from clear in the presentation of his supporting documents and oral evidence.
95. My overall impression of the Father was that regrettably he focused on his position as set above rather then setting out his financial circumstances in a clear and transparent manner as he is obliged to do; however I do not find he deliberately failed to disclose his financial circumstances although this aspect of the case will be revisited in the costs order to be made.
96. It is his Closing Submissions the Father set out his position as to C’s expenses.
“44. The Respondent submits that all expenses relating to C should be borne on a fully equal contributory basis, with each party responsible for one half.
45. The Respondent disputes the total amount claimed by the Petitioner, fixed at HKD 14,465 per month (rounded to HKD 14,500). That amount is excessive, inadequately documented in serval respects, and includes expenses that are in truth part of the mother’s own household or personal expenditure rather than C’s direct needs.
46. The table below sets out, item by item, the Respondent’s position, for an estimated total of HKD 8,098 per month (i.e. HKD 4,049 per month per parent):
| Expense item |
Claimed
(HKD/month) |
Respondent
(HKD/month) |
Respondent’s
Observations |
| School fee
(WFB Mantra Institute) |
1,100 |
1,100 |
Accepted, subject to confirmation. If C is enrolled at LFI, AEFE-related support may reduce the net costs |
| Ancillary school fees |
200 |
200 |
Accepted. |
| Extracurricular activities |
1,648 |
1,648 |
Accepted only subject to proof. Drawing and swimming must be supported by invoices/receipts, enrolment details and reasonable confirmation that the activity is actually ongoing. Any discontinuation, replacement or material change must be notified promptly, with a corresponding financial adjustment. |
| Books and school supplies |
400 |
400 |
Accepted. To be divided equally upon invoice. Not monthly by nature. |
| Medical/dental expenses |
500 |
400 |
Partly disputed. HKD 400/month is sufficient absent any chronic condition. |
| Entertainment/gifts |
800 |
400 |
Disputed. Excessive. HKD 400/month is reasonable |
| Holidays |
1,500 |
0 |
Disputed. Only C’s Hong Kong-Finance return airfare is to be shared (upon proof). All other costs remain the responsibility of the relevant parent. |
| Clothing/shoes |
550 |
400 |
Partly disputed. HKD 400/month is reasonable for a child of this age. |
| Insurance (AIA B631918451) |
980 |
980 |
Accepted. To be shared equally. |
| Other transport |
550 |
300 |
Partly disputed. LFI school transport would reduce this item. |
| School uniform |
200 |
200 |
Accepted. To be divided equally upon invoice. Not monthly by nature. |
| Miscellaneous (wipes, creams) |
445 |
200 |
Disputed. C no longer uses nappies/diapers. HK 200/month is sufficient. |
| Child’s share-household utilities (water, electricity, internet, etc.) |
1,192 |
500 |
Strongly disputed. These are the mother’s household charges, not C’s direct expenses. Any child-related share should not exceed HKD 500/month. |
| Food |
1,800 |
900 |
Disputed. Excessive for a child of this age. HKD 900/month is proportionate. |
| Household expenses |
1,000 |
0 |
Disputed in full. These are the mother’s housing / household expenses and should not be attributed to C. |
| Child’s share – meals outside the home |
1,600 |
470 |
Strongly disputed. This mixes the mother’s personal spending with the child’s outings. Only a reasonable child-related share is admissible. |
| TOTAL MONTHLY |
14,465
(≈14,500) |
8,098 |
That is HKD 4,049/month per parent on a fully equally contributory basis. |
97. In summary the issues of child maintenance are as follows:
(1) What are C’s reasonable expenses; HK$14,500 as the Mother states or HK$8,098 (HK$8,100) as the Father’s contends; a difference of HK$6,400 (HK$14,500 - $8,100)
(2) What is the Father’s income and or earning capacity and actual expenses
(3) What amount should each parent contribute to C’s expenses
98. The main disputes (over HK$500) as to C’s expenses relate to :
| |
Mother |
Father |
Difference |
| Holiday |
HK$1,500 |
HK$0 |
HK$1,500 |
| Child’s share of household utility & Water |
HK$1,192 |
HK$500 |
HK$692 |
| Food |
HK$1,800 |
HK$900 |
HK$900 |
| Household expenses |
HK$1,000 |
HK$0 |
HK$1,000 |
| Child’s share meals |
HK$1,600 |
HK$470 |
HK$1,130 |
| Total |
HK$7,092 |
HK$1,870 |
HK$5,222 |
99. As is apparent the Parents have minimal resources and their combined respective income and/or earning capacity barely covers their expenses and those of C. Both Parents are continuing to rely on financial support from their extended families, both as to their living expenses and legal costs.
100. For the purpose of determining the share of C’s expense I propose to reduce and or not include certain of the Parents’ claimed expenses.
101. For Mother, I propose to reduce her figure for entertainment/presents from HK$1,500 to HK$500 per month and holidays figure of HK$1,670 to HK$1,000 with the effect on reducing her personal expenses from HK$10,926 to HK$9,256.
102. With general expenses of HK$3,992 her total expenses will be HK$13,248 rounded up to HK$13,300, with income of HK$18,525 there remains a surplus of HK$5,225.
103. So far as the Father I do not propose to take into account “Haye & Loan to Parents” of HK$3,304; in summary I consider his expenses excluding child maintenance to be:
| (1) General |
HK$4,720 |
| (2) Personal |
HK$3,681 |
|
HK$8,401 |
104. The Husband states his net income to be €1,250, HK$11,800 per month.
105. As I understand the Father’s evidence this is on the basis he is not working full time to enable him to have flexibility to video call C and unpaid leave to visit C in Hong Kong.
106. From the Father’s employment record it is clear he was able to achieve a higher salary, I therefore consider the Father has an earning capacity in excess of HK$11,800 per month.
107. As a sous chef the Father stated his net income was as follows:
| (1) 5 August 2024 to 30 November 2024 |
HK$11,864 |
| (2) 3 December 2024 to 31 December 2024 |
HK$19,464 |
| (3) 21 January 2025 to June 2025 |
HK$21,939 |
| (4) July 2025 to present |
HK$11,800 |
108. On a broad brush basis I propose to take the average of the figures in paragraph 107 at HK$16,500 and that the Father for the purpose of the application has an earning capacity of HK$16,500.
109. So as C expenses I propose to reduce the figure for entertainment and gifts from HK$800 to HK$400 and for holidays from HK$1,500 to HK$300 which reduces C expense from HK$14,500 to HK$12,900 ($14,500 - $400 - $1,200), rounded up to HK$13,000.
110. In summary I find the following in relation to the Mother:
| (1) Net income |
HK$18,525 |
| (2) Expenses excluding C |
HK$13,300 |
| (3) Surplus |
HK$5,225 |
111. In summary I find the following in relation to the Father:
| (1) Net income / earning capacity |
HK$16,500 |
| (2) Expenses excluding C |
HK$8,401 |
| (3) Surplus |
HK$8,099 |
112. C’s expenses of HK$13,000 will be borne:
(1) HK$5,000 from the Mother
(2) HK$8,000 from the Father
113. I therefore order the Father to pay child maintenance of HK$8,000 per month back dated to 1 June 2025. Although there are no enforcement proceedings I expect that unless otherwise adjudicated by a Court the Father do pay the adjusted figure for arrears on or before 31 October 2026 approximately 4 months from the date of this Judgment.
H. Section 18 Declaration
114. The Parents have agreed that they will not pursue claims for ancillary relief against each other and have further agreed that the Mother shall have the care and control of C.
115. In this judgment I have determined that the Mother shall have the sole custody of C, determined the immediate access arrangements and child maintenance.
116. In the circumstances I am satisfied that by reference to Section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance that the arrangements for C’s welfare are satisfactory or are the best that can be devised in the circumstances, accordingly I grant a Section 18 Declaration which will enable an application to be made for the Decree Nisi of Divorce dated 8 November 2024 to be made absolute.
I. Costs
117. In considering the question of costs, it is relevant to have in mind the Parents’ financial circumstances; from their Form Es it is clear that they each have limited financial resources. It is therefore more than regrettable that the Parents’ have incurred legal costs which are entirely out of proportion to their resources and in particular with regard to child maintenance entirely disproportionate as to quantum.
118. The Mother’s Form H dated 4 March 2026 discloses the following:
| (1) Children’s matters (already paid) |
HK$750,325 |
| (2) Ancillary Relief (already paid) |
HK$600,880 |
| Total |
HK$1,351,205 |
119. The Father’s Form H’s dated 26 March 2026 discloses the following:
| (1) Child (already paid) |
HK$76,965 |
| (2) Ancillary Relief (already paid) |
HK$357,334 |
| Total |
HK$434,299 |
120. The summary of combined costs is as follows:
| (1) Child costs |
|
|
| Mother |
HK$750,325 | |
| Father |
HK$76,965 |
HK$827,290 |
| (2) Ancillary Relief |
|
|
| Mother |
HK$600,880 |
| Father |
HK$357,334 |
HK$958,214 |
|
|
HK$1,785,504 |
Costs in relation to custody and access
121. The approach to costs has been succinctly summarised by Madam Justice Chu in LCH v JMC [2019] HKCFI 2521:
“10. It has been long recognised that in children matters, the general practice is that there be no order as to costs. In TPL and WYY, CACV 47/2014 and CACV 61/2014, unreported, 15.12.14, the Court of Appeal has set out the relevant principles that should be taken into account when considering if a cost order is appropriate in applications to do with children. As pointed out by the Court of Appeal, the approach that in applications to do with children, the usual order should be no order as to costs stems from the aspiration that in these applications, the court is seeking to find an arrangement which is best for the children, and that the rationale is that when a court considers custody and care and control of the children, the proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial.”.
122. Having considered the circumstances of this case and particularly the nature of this trial which relates to the custody and future arrangements of a child; I see no reason to depart from the usual order that there be no order as to costs including all costs reserved. Such order will be nisi and shall become absolute 28 days after the date of this Judgment unless either Parent notifies the court that they wish to be heard on costs.
Ancillary Relief Costs
123. As referred to above the Parents agreed in January 2025 that neither is making any application for ancillary relief against the other, the only financial question is that of child maintenance.
124. So far as Child Maintenance the Parents were approximately HK$6,400 per month apart or HK$77,000 per annum. The Parents have incurred costs of HK$958,214; in excess of 12 times such amount excluding the further HK$827,290 they have incurred in relation to C’s living arrangements and the Hague proceedings.
125. Neither Parent has been entirely successful: the order for child maintenance is more than the Father offered of HK$4,500 and less than the Mother sought of HK$11,000.
126. In the circumstance, I consider the appropriate order is no order as to costs however in the context of the Father’s failure to make clear financial disclosure I consider he should be responsible for part of the Mother’s costs that will have undoubtably arisen by reason of his approach to financial disclosure.
127. On a broad brush basis I consider that the Father should pay a contribution of HK$50,000 to the Mother’s costs to be paid on or before the 31 October 2026.
128. I appreciate I have not heard submissions on costs and or been apprised of any without prejudice save as to costs correspondence; this order as to costs is therefore nisi and shall become absolute 28 days from the date of the Judgment unless either Parent informs the Court in writing that they wish to be heard on costs.
Miscellaneous
129. In August 2025 it would appear that the Parents considered mediation, unfortunately no mediation took place.
130. At the end of the Trial the Court enquired as to possible mediation in the future. In her Closing Submissions the Mother confirmed that:
a) She agrees to engage in mediation to resolve any future disputes
b) That such costs should be shared equally
c) The Mediator should be a qualified lawyer practicing in Hong Kong
131. The Father’s Closing Submission did not address mediation, however he confirmed in the Trial that he agreed to participate in mediation in the future.
132. In the context of the Parents’ agreement to mediate I direct that the Parents by 30 September 2026 arrange mediation which if required can be by zoom in particular to explore the arrangements for the Father’s access in France in 2027 and any other matters between them that need to be resolved whether relating to C and or financial matters.
133. In his Closing Submissions the Father raised the following additional matters:
(1) Costs relating to the divorce
(2) C’s French Consular Registration
(3) Schooling: Lycée Francais International de Hong Kong
(4) The possibility of C residing in France
(5) The necessary future flexibility of Cs living arrangements
(6) Occasional psychological support for C
These are not matters currently before the Court; in the event the Father wishes to pursue matters (2) to (6) then he should file the appropriate application.
J. Conclusion
134. The broad structure of the preamble and the orders flowing from this Judgment are as follows :
(1) Upon the Mother and Father having confirmed that C's habitual residence is Hong Kong
(2) And upon a Mirror order being obtained in France prior to any overseas access by the Father to C that :
i) Hong Kong is C's habitual residence
ii) The Mother has the sole custody and care and control of C
(3) The Mother shall have the sole custody of C.
(4) By consent
i) The Mother shall have the care and control of C
ii) In the event the Father is in Hong Kong during C’s school term, he shall have day access after school or extra-curricular activities to 8pm, or as mutually agreed.
iii) Concerning all access, the Father shall pick up and drop off C at the lobby of the Mother’s residence, or as mutually agreed.
iv) When the Father does not have defined access to C, he shall have video access 4 days a week for no less than 20 minutes per call commencing at 6pm HKT, or as mutually agreed on variation of frequency or duration of each call.
v) The Mother shall have reasonable video access during the Father’s defined access time
(5) It is further ordered that :
i) The Father’s term time staying access shall be:
a) Until 31 October 2026 two night staying access from either after school on Friday until 9am on Sunday or from 6pm Saturday until Monday morning when he takes C to school
b) From 1 January 2027: In week one, three nights staying access from after school Friday until Monday morning when he takes C to school; in week two, two nights staying access from after school Wednesday until Friday morning when he takes C to school
ii) Holiday arrangements
a) The Parents shall equally share C’s long school holidays.
b) For the Father ½ of the long school holidays, staying access in Hong Kong for the 1st long school holiday with 2 nights staying access, and the 2nd long school holiday with 3 nights staying access. From the 3rd long school holiday onwards with 4 nights, or as mutually agreed. Any remaining access of the Father’s ½ share of the long school holiday to be by way of day access from 9 am to 9 pm, or as mutually agreed.
c) Special dates of the long school holidays such as 25-26 December of Christmas holidays and CNY eve to 1st day of CNY shall be alternated by the parties.
(6) The Father shall have the access including staying access in France to commence in 2027.
(7) The order of 20 May 2025 be varied from HK$11,000 to HK$8,000 per month from 1 June 2025.
(8) The Father do pay the arrears of maintenance to the Mother on or before 31 October 2026.
(9) The Father do pay child maintenance of HK$8,000 for the benefit C to the Mother by standing order to a Hong Kong bank account nominated by the Mother.
(10) The Parties arrange mediation on or before 30 September 2026.
(11) There be no order as to costs so far as custody and access including all cost reserved; there shall be no order as to costs so for as child maintenance save that the Father do pay the Mother a contribution to her costs of HK$50,000 to be paid on or before 31 October 2026; such orders be nisi and shall become absolute save in the event either Parent notifies the Court in writing within 28 days of this Judgment that they wish to be heard on costs.
(12) Liberty to apply.
135. The Mother’s solicitors to draw up the orders in relation to the C’s arrangements and child maintenance.
| |
(R N Egerton)
|
|
Deputy District Judge |
The Petitioner (Mother) represented by Ms Tanie Toh instructed by Messrs H.Y. Leung & Co LLP
The Respondent (Father) appeared in person
|