|
FCMC 14333/2017
[2020] HKFC 114
香 港 特 別 行 政 區
區 域 法 院
婚姻訴訟案件編號2017年第14333宗
——————————
——————————
| 主審法官︰ |
區域法院法官謝沈智慧內庭審訊(非公開) |
| 審訊日期︰ |
2018年9月4日至7日及2019年1月10日
及2019年3月15日 |
| 判決書日期︰ |
2020年5月27日 |
-------------------------
判 決 書
( 管養及探視 )
-------------------------
1. 本審訊關乎兩名家庭子女的管養及探視安排。呈請人（父親）同意兩名家庭子女由答辯人（母親）照顧及管束〔見A1/62〕；法庭亦於2017年11月1日頒布有關命令〔見A1/68〕。父親要求獲子女的共同管養及界定探視，包括留宿探視。母親則要求單獨管養。雖然母親同意界定探視，但反對留宿安排。
背景
2. 父親現年47歲。七零年代中，父親與家人先後移居香港，生活困苦。父親於小學三年級始便於放學後到父母的熟食檔幫忙，直至中學一年級，因成績欠佳，自動退學開始工作。除首三年任職珠寶學徒外，他一直就職於髮型設計的行業。父親現為髮廊董事，並以自僱形式為高級髮型師。
3. 母親在香港的中產家庭出生及成長。1990年，她舉家移居加拿大，但母親大學畢業後回流香港生活及工作。她一直於不同的時裝及髮型公司作採購工作；現為某大百貨公司的行政人員。
4. 母親經她的前下屬認識父親，父親本是母親前下屬的丈夫。由於母親前下屬有婚外情，與父親於2003年離婚。父母倆人於約2006年開始交往，並於2007年初同居。2008年2月2日結成夫婦，長子於同年5月12日出生，現年11歲。長子患有輕度的過度活躍症，現在英國寄宿學校唸書。長子出生後，一直主要由母親及其父母照顧，而家庭亦聘有外傭協助家務。
5. 大約婚後兩年左右，父親間中出外渡宿，兩人亦經常因家庭瑣碎事經常爭吵。最終父親於2010年約8月遷離前婚姻居所。同年，父親提出離婚，但母親表示不同意。父親遷出前婚姻居所一個月後結識了現任女友（女友），為了給長子一個完整的家庭，母親包容父親的行為，希望他回心轉意，並一同尋求社工協助，接受婚姻輔導，可惜他們只接受了一兩次輔導後便放棄，關係亦始終沒有明顯的改善。雖然如此，兩人一直維持夫妻關係；母親更於2013年8月30日為父親誕下幼女。幼女現年6歲。母親本以為父親會為了子女遷回前婚姻居所，但只落得失望。父親表示有難言之隱；他一直感到雙方性格不合，價值觀不同導致有不少爭拗。
6. 2013年2月，父親於FCMC 2146/2013一案內向法庭申請離婚。後來，在雙方同意下，於2015年10月7日撤銷該離婚呈請，但兩人繼續分開居住。父親不時自行回到前婚姻居所探望子女。
7. 2015年6月，父親發現母親和子女已遷離前婚姻居所。他指稱當時探視有困難，只能於學校及興趣班上課點等待子女短聚。母親則指父親一直可以於外祖父母接送子女作探視。
8. 2015年12月2日，父親再向法庭作出離婚呈請（案件編號FCMC15391/2015）。同日，父親發出傳票，要求獲得子女的界定探視，2017年10月27日，父母雙方存檔同意傳票，以自2016年10月24日起分居一年為由提出本案的離婚呈請。而FCMC 15391/2015的呈請書於本案發出《暫准離婚令》後將被撤回。
9. 2017年11月1日，在雙方同意下，法庭發出中期界定探視令。該命令下，父親的界定探視如下︰
(1) 每星期的星期三（由下午4時至6時）；
(2) 每星期的星期五（由下午4時至9時）；
(3) 每星期的星期日（由上午10時至下午3時）；及
(4) 在家庭子女的假期，父親獲得額外的日間探視，具體探視時間由雙方協議安排。
10. 雖然雙方同意安排，但就探視仍爭拗不斷，例如︰
(1) 界定探視的申請由父親提上 ，但沒有爭議的是他一直違反命令，在協議時間以外作探視；
(2) 雙方亦就父親有否遲到，自行延遲送子女回家，有否在沒有通知情況下失約及探視期間的照顧安排爭拗；
(3) 不受爭議的是，父親在沒有與母親商討和沒有給予子女任何心理準備下，向子女透露正與母親離婚及案件的詳情。他亦要求子女與其女友見面及建立關係。母親指稱父親的行為令到子女有情緒困擾。
11. 2017年11月3日，父親向法庭作出本案的離婚呈請，並於同日發傳票，要求獲得界定留宿探視〔見A/65〕。
12. 本案的離婚呈請大受抗辯。法庭於2018年1月16日發出暫准離婚命令。
論點
13. 父親指他一直有參與照顧兩名家庭子女，與他們的關係密切。他指母親崇尚奢侈，希望日後可參與子女的安排，教導正常合理的價值觀。他認為父母應各施其職，他可對子女的身心，例如運動等作貢獻。
14. 母親則指父親對子女的重大決定漠不關心，對他們的學業更不聞不問。另外，母親指父親完全不顧子女的福祉，只顧要求子女接受他的女友。母親亦指父親從沒單獨照顧兩名子女，留宿的經驗，在前婚姻居所的留宿探視均由她的傭人協助。父親不但自己的生活沒有規律，還經常破壞子女的生活紀律，令他們難以適應。
15. 總括而言，本案論點是︰
(1) 家庭子女的管養權應該是共同管養還是單獨管養？
(2) 探視應如何安排？
適用的法律原則
16. 根據香港法例第192章《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第19條的規定：
「(1) 法庭可在下列時間，作出其認為是適宜的命令，以便為任何18歲以下的家庭子女提供管養及教育─
(a) 在任何離婚、婚姻無效或裁判分居的法律程序中，於作出最後判令之當時、之前或之後；
(b) ……。」
17. 香港法例第13章《未成年人監護條例》第3條訂明，當法庭考慮這類申請時︰
一般原則
“(1) 有關未成年人的管養或敎養問題，以及有關屬於未成年人或代未成年人託管的財產的管理問題，或從該等財產所獲收益的運用問題 ——
(a) 在任何法院進行的法律程序中(不論該法院是否第2條所界定的法院) ——
(i) 法院須以未成年人的最佳利益為首要考慮事項，而考慮此事項時須對下列各項因素給予適當考慮
(A) 未成年人的意願(如在顧及未成年人的年齡及理解力，以及有關個案的情況後，考慮其意願乃屬切實可行者)；及
(B) 任何關鍵性資料，包括聆訊進行時社會福利署署長備呈法院的任何報告；及
(ii) 在上述管養、敎養、財產管理或收益運用等問題上，法院無須從任何其他觀點來考慮父親的申索，是否較母親的申索為優先，或母親的申索是否較父親的為優先；
(b) …母親所享有的權利及權能，與法律賦予父親的相同，而父親及母親雙方的權利及權能同等，並可由其中一方單獨行使；”
18. 家事法庭亦慣常考慮由法律改革委員會於2005年3月就「子女管養權及探視權」所發出的報告書中第9.29段所建議的因素︰
“(a) 如能查明有關兒童的意見，須因應他的年齡和理解能力考慮他的意見；
(b) 他的身體、感情和教育方面的需要；
(c) 他環境上的改變可能對他造成的影響；
(d) 他的年齡、成熟程度、性別、社會和文化背景，以及其他法院認為有關的特點；
(e) 他曾經遭受或有機會遭受的傷害；
(f) 他的父親、母親和法院認為與這問題有關的人，能在什麼程度上滿足他的需要；
(g) 該兒童與父親、母親和其他人的關係的性質；
(h) 該兒童的父親和母親對該兒童和對父母身分的責任所表現的態度；
(i) 法院根據本條例在有關法律程序中可行使的權力範圍。”
19. 上述清單雖仍未正式成為香港法例 ，但會有助法庭裁定怎樣的安排才能保障家庭子女的最佳利益。於H v N (children: variation of interim order) [2012] 5 HKLRD 498一案中，法庭解釋法官不是必定要考慮上述清單內的所有因素，而是可自行選擇應該考慮什麼因素。
管養權及照顧管束權
20. 於Y v P (CACV 140/2009)一案內，羅傑志上訴庭長就婚姻訴訟雙方就管養權的議題上，有以下的解釋︰
“… The Recorder’s judgment usefully sets out the law relating to custody. As the Recorder pointed out in paragraph 24, the first consideration as to whether to grant joint custody to both parents or sole custody must be the welfare of the child. The Recorder went on to state that whether or not a joint custody order is workable depends very much on whether the parents can co-operate. The Recorder continued:
“(3) A joint custody order may in appropriate cases be made for the purpose of encouraging parents to overcome their differences and co-operate for the benefit of their children. Joint custody in such circumstances can serve the purpose of recognizing the role of both parents in the child’s upbringing. However, if it is clear that a joint custody is not workable, it seems unlikely that the Court will nevertheless make such a joint custody order solely for the purpose of encouraging the parties to overcome their differences or to recognize the continuing role of the parties. As stated above, a joint custody order which is unlikely to be workable cannot be in the best interests of the children as the adverse consequences will far outweigh the benefits that it may bring.”
… It should be remembered that even where there is a joint custody order, it would, inevitably, fall to one of the parents to decide minor everyday matters. The court is able to make a joint custody order when it is satisfied that the parties would co-operate. Co-operation does not mean that the parties are expected to be of the same mind or opinion about everything, but it does entail the parties being able to leave decisions on less important matters to the other party. If that were not the case the joint custody would be unworkable. Each party has to be able to trust the other party to the extent of leaving such decisions to the other party…”
21. 於PD v KWW (Child: Joint Custody) [2010] 4 HKLRD 191一案中，夏正民法官就兩者之分別及法庭是否頒令共同管養時，作出以下解釋︰
“36. It is to be emphasized in the strongest terms that if one parent only is given custody, that parent is not thereby given an absolute and independent authority to act without further reference to the non-custodial parent…
38. A non-custodial parent therefore has the right to be consulted in respect of all matters of consequence that relate to the child’s upbringing. While the right to be consulted does not include a power of veto, it is nevertheless a substantial right. It is not merely a right to be informed, it is a right to be able to confer on the matter in issue, to give advice and to have that advice considered.
39. While therefore a parent who is given sole custody is given the authority, in the event of disagreement with the non-custodial parent, to make the final decision, it should only be made after due consultation and, if the final decision that is made is considered by the non-custodial parent to be inimical to the child’s best interests, the court may be called upon to determine the matter.
40. Invariably, therefore, the giving of sole custody to one parent does no more than recognize that, in the circumstances of the breakdown of the marriage, the best interests of the child are secured by giving to that parent the authority, if necessary, to make a final decision concerning matters of consequence in the upbringing of the child but only after the other parent’s views have been given full and rational consideration. In summary, an order of sole custody does no more than add a qualification to the otherwise joint endeavor of both parents in raising their child, that qualification being that the final decision will rest with one parent.
41. For this reason it is often said that there is a thin line between sole custody and joint custody…
Joint Custody: the proper approach
52. Today, although there has been no change in our law similar to many other common law jurisdictions, orders of joint custody are in no way exceptional. This is because it is accepted that, in principle, such orders are in the interests of children.
53. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, the effect of divorce on the children of the marriage, especially children of tender years, is deeply felt. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, such children desire that they should continue to be protected and guided by both parents. The case before us is an example.
54. In the result, in the best interests of the child, the fact that, as a result of the breakdown of the marriage, relations between the parents are strained is not of itself a reason to refuse to make a joint order of custody. Nor is the fact that the parent to be given care and control does not agree. Such orders look to the future. They will govern a limited area of exchange between the parents, albeit one of the greatest importance.
55. Accordingly, the issue for the judge is whether, with the court proceedings concluded, it is reasonably anticipated that the parents will be able to agree on the questions of importance that will determine the upbringing of their child, both recognizing that, as difficult as it may be for them, this process of co-operation is in the best interests of the child.
56. In determining this issue, the judge is entitled to proceed on the presumption that competent, loving parents possessed of sufficient objectivity to be able to make rational decisions in the interests of the child will be able to co-operate with each concerning matters of importance in the upbringing of the child.
57. At all times, of course, the welfare of the child remains the first and paramount consideration. As this Court has recognized (see, for example, Y v P [2009] HKFLR 308), there may be occasions when the ability of the parents to reach any rational accord in respect of important matters concerning the upbringing of their child is so deeply undermined that to compel attempts at co-operation will not protect the interests of the child but only leave the child more vulnerable.”
專家意見
22. 本案內，法庭共傳閱兩份社會福利署調查報告及一份心理專家報告︰
(1) 2017年10月18日（社會福利調查報告）〔B/74-85〕
(2) 2018年4月19日（更新社會福利調查報告）〔B/98-104〕
(3) 2018年4月17日的心理專家報告〔B/86-97〕
社會福利主任的觀察及意見
23. 社會福利署調查報告顯示，兩名家庭子女與父母均相處融洽。父親最初表示同意將管養權和照顧及管束權予母親，而希望母親共同分享兩名子女假期，並要求在星期六或星期日留宿探視。另外，父親希望星期一至星期四可以教導女兒功課及閱讀課外書給她。後來，他表示很關心及愛錫兩名子女，所以希望獲得共同管養權，以便履行父親的責任，繼續參與子女的重要事宜的決定，好讓子女感受父親的愛護。雖然他與母親相處有困難，他有信心可共同履行父母的責任 ，因此，父親要求與母親共享管養權。他同意母親獲得照顧管束權，但如母親因工作未能自己照顧子女，父親願意承擔照顧的責任，不願意子女交由傭人或外祖父母照顧。至於探視，父親相信合理探視未能保障他與子女的見面時間，因此，他希望能釐定清楚探視安排，除星期日由早上10時至下午3時外，他希望每星期有兩晚可與子女共進晚。另外，他希望每星期有一晚留宿探視，他亦希望能與母親共享子女的長假期，讓他可以帶子女離港渡假〔B79-80/17-19段〕。
24. 母親表示她十分愛錫兩名子女，所以希望獲得他們的管養權，以便她可以在離婚後，繼續履行母親的責任，並會通知父親有關她對兩名子女的重大決定。母親表示父親自離開婚姻居所後，一直都沒有參與有關子女的安排；她指出以往的重要決定，均由她作主。加上雙方價值觀不同，她擔心與父親商討子女的福利事宜時，會有衝突。因此，希望獲得單獨管養權。至於探視方面，母親表示同意父親與子女保持聯繫以維持親子關係。她希望維持現有的固定探視安排，即星期三下午4至6時，星期五下午4至9時及星期日上午10時至下午3時。對於留宿探視，母親認為父親不規律生活模式，如不定時起床及食飯等，會影響子好現有的規律生活模式，特別是有輕度過度活躍症的長子需要一個規律的生活；因此，母親希望父親無論是在長假期或留宿探視期間，可以到她的居所與子女見面或帶子女外出，但必需帶子女回家或父親留下來與子女同睡。母親不滿父親曾帶著子女見他的女朋友，並要求兒子擁抱她，亦叫子女不要讓母親知道。兒子感到困惑，並哭著說不喜歡父親的女朋友。另外，父親在接送子女回祖父母家時，告訴兒子父母經常爭吵，以致他需要找女朋友，母親不會讓兒子與他見面，兒子立即大哭。有一次外傭未能接聽父親的電話，他心急要接兒子參加棋藝班，便到母親家大吵大鬧，不但嚇怕兒子，還告訴兒子母親是瘋癲及心理不平衡，令兒子感到不安及承受壓力。母親希望探視時，父親的女友不可出現，因她不希望兒子再受到傷害及影響〔B79-81/15，20-22段〕。
25. 長子向調查社工表示很喜愛父母。他形容母親很愛錫他，經常照顧及鼓勵他；他開心的時候是與母親玩遊戲。他覺得父親對他很好，但有時有點惡。他表示一直以為因父親忙於工作，所以很少留在家中，直至近月有一天父親對他說要搬離屋企與女朋友同住，父親更表示母親不會准許他與父親見面，所以他便哭起來。他對父母申請離婚的事不太清楚及不明白，但他明白父母分開後他會較少見到父親。他希望父親會回家一同生活。他表示間中會到祖父母家逗留數天；他很喜愛祖父母，亦感受到他們對他的愛護及關懷〔B81/23段〕。
26. 社工認為父母均愛錫子女。母親希望獲單獨管養，維持一直以來的照顧模式。父親則表示想參與子女的重要決定，但並沒有考慮他能否與母親好好地溝通。社工指出，在考慮子女的管養權事宜上，必需以子女的最佳利益為依歸，包括衡量父母雙方在照顧計劃是否滿足子女在身體照顧、感情和教育的需要。子女與父母的關係、子女的意願、環境改變對子女所帶來的影響，以及子女與父母保持聯繫的安排等。社工認為父親搬離婚姻居所後，母親一直為主要照顧者，亦恰當地安排子女的起居生活及學習需要。在過程中，縱然父親未有太多的參與，亦不見母親的決定有影響子女與父親的關係。因此，社工認為維持現有的管養模式實有利於兩名子女在各方面的安排。因此建議為了子女的福利，母親獲得單獨的管養權〔B83/29段〕。至於探視方面，社工認為父母未能有效溝通，因此如有規定探視的安排，可減少雙方的誤會及衝突，從而減少對子女帶來壓力，亦可保障父親探視的時間。社工建議以下的界定探視︰
(1) 維持日間探視，星期三下午4時至6時、星期五下午4時至9時及星期日早上10時至下午3時；
(2) 父母可平均分享學校的長假期。如雙方未能達成共識，可以以輪流的方式給予父親假期的前半或後半部份；
(3) 確保探視能順暢執行及避免節外生枝，父親的女友在探視期間不可出現，除非得到母親及子女的同意。
(4) 就留宿探視，建議父母透過共享親職輔導或調解服務商討。
心理醫生報告
27. 因父母就父親新戀情對子女影響的爭議 ，法庭傳閱兒童心理醫生的報告，報告顯示︰
"Behavioral observations
(The Father) neither showed up nor called back on the first offered appointment. From the social worker, (The Father) did not show up because he misunderstood he only had to attend joint sessions with the children with the social worker’s facilitation, (The Father) was interviewed on the Third offered appointment, with confirmation email sent on 25.12.2017. However, (The Father) was 60 minutes late for the interview. He explained that his lateness was due to his receipt of the social worker’s email that morning, so he was notified to come only 30 minutes after the scheduled appointment time. From the administered questionnaires, a casual and evasive pattern was noted in (The Father’s) response style, some questions that collect factual information of the children were left blank; and for questions that were attempted, his answers were either vague or addressed part of the questions only. (The Father’s) written answers impressed to have a tone milder than what he expressed verbally during the interview. A light-hearted attitude that minimizes the reported difficulties was noted … Throughout the interview, (The Father) repeated his concerns about (The Mother’s) plan to block the children from meeting his girlfriend, and attributed that to (The Mother’s) jealousy as well as lack of confidence.
(The Mother) arrived 10 minutes earlier. She completed all questions in a detailed and serious manner. After the assessment, (The Mother) still mailed a set of documents to the undersigned about her management of helpers and the children’s schedule… (The Mother) firmly reiterated her request for the undersigned to be very sensitive to her children because her children were not informed of the divorce and she did not want them to be unhappy … (The Mother) impressed to have a preference over clearly defined and predictable structure, and she impressed to have taken up a protective role for the children …
B. The Parent’s views towards the Present Assessment
(The Father) though his concerns for the children to have a more balanced development read to the present assessment, while (The Mother) believed her objection to the father’s proposal of he staying access bungs about the present assessment.
C. Views on Childcare Plan and Custody
(The Father) agreed with the Court’s decision to grant the care and control of two children to (The Mother). However, he hoped the court would grant the order of joint custody to uphold the balance of both their views for the children’s an-rounded development. Although he considered (The Mother’s) arrangement on children’s matters has been adequately balanced all along, he believed joint custody would lead to an even better balance of views for children’s development in the long run without elaborating on his plan to achieve such optional balance, be jumped to report how (The Mother) attempted to stop him from moving on, namely the divorce application and his subsequent plan to remarry his girlfriend within a year after divorce, without pointing out the current difficulties of staying access, he continued to envision how the children can benefit from having staying access at his home, since that would enable him to pass on knowledge not limited to textbook but also on daily living. He also assumed the contacts between the children and his girlfriend. Their step-mother-to-be, can promote better character development in them. The Father assumed the addition of his girlfriend is input to the existing parenthood of him and (The Mother), can altogether help to meet the children’s needs in a more fruitful way without specifying the actions to be taken for improvement, he foresees his relationship with (The Mother) would simultaneously improve over time following the settlement of divorce application six months later. One year later, (The Father) envisioned he can work harmiously together with (The Mother) on negotiating their problems and children’s matter.
(The Father) hoped to dine with the children twice every week and be granted one-night staying access on weekly basis. He reported that (The Son) also wanted to sleepover at his home. He then retold his heartbroken experience whom (The Mother) previously cutties with the children in details. Having a very different view from (The Mother), he described the current access arrangement as smooth with time and date agreed between them. Vaguely, he believed access arrangement would be even smoother with the court’s order.
In a detailed manner, (The Father) reiterated his displeasure towards (The Mother’s) attempt to stop him from divorcing and the latter’s subsequent effort to prevent the children from meeting his girlfriend, (The Father) attributed that to (the Mother’s) jealousy as well as her lack of confidence. Regarding the incident do out (The Son’s) crying after meeting (The Father’s) girlfriend, as reported in the Social Investigation Report dated 18 October 2017, (The Father) disagreed with the recommendation made by a private psychologist hired by the mother. He opined that asking the son to hug his girlfriend was a general and social gesture they have taught their kids to do since birth. He reported to have checked with the son that his crying was not as intense or serious as (The Mother) described. Furthermore, it was the Mother’s way of probing the child that scared him. (The Father) had previously proposed to have the son re-assessed by another psychologist but the mother disagreed.
(The Mother) objected to (the Father’s) proposal of staying access. She believed defined access at ‘her’ home would be the best for the children. Without further elaborating on her reason of objection to staying access, she reported how (The Father’s) pattern of having last minutes changes and not strictly following the defined access time had let the children down and caused inconvenience to her, the helpers and her parents due to ad-hoc rescheduling. She believed the children were affected emotionally too, since she observed the children would either be every excited for seeing the father outside the defined time or getting disappointed for not being able to see the father within the defined time she hoped (The Father) can be more considerate and put the children’s interest as his priority, but not requesting others to accommodate his needs, she hoped (The Father) can follow the suggested defined access arrangement and gives notice for change in advance so that she can be prepared.
Besides, (The Father’s) recent unnoticed reduction of maintenance and the latter’s accusations of her poor budgeting as well as children’s management aggravated their communication difficulties. Moreover, (The Father’s) acts to deference her before the children and said hurtful words to the children triggered negative emotions in both children, particularly the son, who needed psychological consultation afterwards. Two episodes of (The Father) hitting and swearing at her before the children were also reported. She described (The Father) as a hot-tempered person who would invite argument in conversation and had resorted to use violence against her.
E. Degree of Communication and Cooperation Between Separate Parents
Although (The Father) personally regarded the present access as very smooth be reported unsettled disputes with (The Mother) over the amount of maintenance and the use of daily expenses. He thought (The Mother) was over spending without careful consideration for the children’s future expenses. He felt (The Mother) was made in her attitude and deliberately made things hard for him on top of her banning of the children to meet his girlfriend. He believed (The Son) was not as disturbed as reported by the mother or the psychologist hired by the mother. Rather, he attributed part of (The Son’s) crying to the mother’s way of probing the child to retell what he did with him and his girlfriend and the child being accused of telling lies before the mother. (The Father) reported that he has always been co-operative and calm in his attitude even when (The Mother) turned rude during their communication.
On the contrary, (The Mother) expressed her view that (The Father) intentionally made things difficult for her and invited arguments when they communicate, so there is no way for them to compromise or reach consensus at present. As her relationship with (The Father) has turned poor and without mutual trust, (The Mother) encountered difficulties to reach agreement with (The Father). As reported, she would stay composed to avoid argument in spite of (The Father’s) bad attitude, particularly in front of the children. She believed that only if (The Father) can talk logically with child-focused intention communicate in a civilized and constructive manner, the she is open to work with (The Father) is harmony again, which included accommodating (The Father’s) request to have extra access with children under reasonable condition.
On the surface, both parties impressed to welcome the possibility for harmonious co-operation and expressed their ability to remain composed when conflict arises. However, various implicitly perquisites for co-operation were expressed by both of them, which demands the other party to change one’s attitude and behaviour before co-operation is possible, upon further enquiry about their views on different cove issues, large discrepancy and very limited mistrust were noted between them. For instance, while (The Father) reported to have informed (The Son) of the divorce and the latter showed understanding about it, (The Mother) reported a different picture that the son was deeply hurt by how (The Father) inappropriately broke the news. In contrast, (The Mother) preferred to keep the children from knowing while reassuring them of their safety, security and the absence of upcoming changes. … Apparently, the current working relationship between (The Father) and (The Mother) did not seem to have reached the degree of co-operativeness they hope for, hence room for co-operation between them seems minutes if other factors remain unchanged.
F. Children’s need for respective parents
(a) (The Son)
(The Son) used drawings and play to express his feelings for individual parent, which showed his understanding that his parents were currently living apart and his father did not want to come home. The child also expressed his wish for daddy to come back again and his wishes for the family for four to do different activities together in the future. This may either reflect the child’s inadequate understanding of his parents’ divorce and/or the child’s wish for parental separation to be temporary. He also expressed his wish to be with his maternal grandmother when his parents were both out for work. Findings from the Family Revisions Test (FRT) revealed that the child’s emotional attitude towards his mother was mainly positive while his emotional attitude towards his father was mainly ambivalent.
… he found his mother more accepting and understanding … even when he did not well all the time … (The Mother) demonstrated effectiveness in setting clear structure for the child to follow rules easily and effort to engage the child to solicit willing cooperation was noted …
… (The Son) revealed his enjoyment when going shopping and playing sports with his father … did not enjoy working or performing before his father… Also the child verbalized his wish for his father’s attention more, rather than seeing the latter preoccupied with his phone use. This party illustrates the child’s wish to be accepted and not be judged based on his performance, a universal need for all-age, his wish for more father-son quality time as well as his unspoked for to reveal his inner feelings before the father …
(b) (The Daughter)
… Throughout the session, the child expressed her wish for her father to cuddle all three of them and the joy of a family brought by a father’s return to one’s home through drawing and her free play, she also regarded her maternal grandmother as her significant others.
… In general, the mother demonstrated strengths in her limit setting and ability to attend to her child’s need and mix with the latter in an age appropriate way …
… (The Daughter) did not enjoy the time when her father focused on finishing a horror movie on TV and ignored her clear expression of fear and her wish to stop the horror movie and do something else together … she disliked her father’s style of story-telling, because the latter would only flip the pages but not reaching the stories for and with her.
G. Conclusion and Recommendations
… Both children expressed ambivalent feelings towards the father and verbalized some activities that they did not enjoy doing with the latter in particular. They both wished (The Father) could be more sensitive to their feelings in daily setting; and be more emotionally present as well as attentive dung access. The children’s genuine expression shed light on their hope and trust for (The Father) to show greater concerns for their feelings in order to build stronger bonds with them.
2) … (The Father’s) perception of his very good relationship with both children was not as indicative as he thought from his children’s eyes, without considering the children’s level of understanding, pace, acceptability, and feeling towards parental divorce, (The Father) appeared to be more concerned about how he wanted the children to integrate in his upcoming new stage of life with his girlfriend. This sharply contrasted and clerked with (The Mother’s) stance of non-disclosure about familial changes to the children, and maintained the tension between the parents. It is understandable that (The Father) would like to keep the children informed of his upcoming changes in life and wanted his girlfriend to keep tie with the children. However, due to the weak and ambivalent former children relationships and the children’s needs to slowly understand and accept the changes, it is recommended that (The Father) be more patient in turning to the children’s pace, and to devote more effort to deliver his love for the children in a way they can clearly feel and receive, ie to consolidate the foundation of father-children relationship first.
3) (The Mother) impressed to demonstrate relatively better understanding of children’s pace, needs as well as feelings, (The Mother) impressed to have taken up a strong protective role for the children …. Stance to keep the children from knowing about parented divorce. This may reflect her underlying wish to protect the children from getting hurt or worried about the probable changes in the family. Such protective role, however, may trigger even hurtful feelings and confusion in the children when they gradually come to realize what they know and see is inconsistent.
4) One prominent characteristic about the family appeared to be the children were uninformed of parental divorce while the parents each appeared to hold a totally opposite stage of disclosure and non-disclosure. Such inconsistency and discrepancy can cause serous confusion and trigger a strong sense of insecurity in the children to interfere with their adaptation. In particular, (The Father) is planning to remarry. Such obvious change will be very confusing for the children to make sense of if they were to keep in the clerk about parental divorce. Therefore, keeping the children informed of the familial changes in an age-appropriate and factual way agreed by both parents would be of paramount importance for the best interests of both children. Only by open communication, children can then be helped to understand the actual changes associated with parental divorce ie parental love and parents’ decision to divorce are two district issues that would not threaten their significance in each parent’s heart; and they can have individual parental love separately.
5) … (The Father) and (The Mother) each advocate for joint or sole custody responsively. Their approach to problem, views towards children’s matters were very different and a common or agreed grand for communication as well as cooperation appeared to be lacking. If joint custody is considered, there is a higher change their more conflict would come up, especially both parents’ perception on each other was rather negative with little mutual trust left between them. One of the difficulties reported by (The Mother) was access arrangement difficulties. It would be crucial for both (The Mother) and (The Father) to comply with the agreed time and give early notice to each other in case any change to the defined access is needed.”
更新社會福利調查報告
28. 根據該報告，父親希望與母親共同擁有管養權。他表示希望做個負責任的父親，並參予子女的重要決定。他重覆表示母親一直不接受他提出離婚，又阻撓他與女朋友與子女見面，是出於妒忌心，及恐怕他女朋友會取代她在子女心中的地位。有關兒子的學校安排，他表示他給了母親意見及安排，他的徒弟教兒子數學，以便他得到好成績報考英國較好的學校，但卻表示等與女朋友結婚後才會到英國了解兒子的學校情況。他承認與母親的溝通欠理想，但這段時間雙方爭拗已較少。他雖然表示希望透過調解服務令大家達成共識，但是他並沒有作出安排，並表示感到難以向母親提出。他希望獲得留宿探視，希望與子女建立親密的關係。他建議隔個月或隔週享有留宿探視及可分享子女的長假期。
29. 母親指希望盡量令子女不受父母兩人的關係影響，絕不會在子女面前說父親的不是或爭吵，所以每當父親有不合理的要求，只好讓步或妥協，不會令子女夾在兩人的矛盾中，避免他們感到很大壓力，她表示父親只會為自己的需要出發，曾直接向兒子說他會與女朋友結婚及母親不會讓他見兒子等等，令兒子放聲大哭，需要她安撫及接受心理專家服務。另外，父親又為了討好他的女朋友，不惜用玩具或糖果利誘女兒 ，要她在電話上向女朋友說「I love you! I miss you!」，可見他並非真心以子女的福利為首要。雖然與父親溝通欠佳，但她仍經常向父親詳細匯報有關子女的情況，但父親卻經常不回應她的訊息，令她感到委屈及氣餒。她現正為子女蒐集升中學及小學資料，她亦曾多次往英國了解，也曾邀請父親一同參加有關講座，亦已將有關資料給他，然而父親並沒有回應。她表示若她追問父親，他便會發脾氣及駡她一番。當母親作出最終決定時，父親也沒有提出反對。為了子女的最佳福利，母親堅持單獨管養。她表示如她獲得單獨管養，仍會通知父親有關子女的重要決定及聽取他的意見。對於探視，母親同意現行的界定探視安排。就留宿探視，母親認為父親未能單獨照顧子女，沒有外傭，家裡亦缺乏足夠配套如子女的睡床和玩具等等。她不介意父親於長假期或固定探視時間到她家裡與子女作留宿探視 ，待父親家有足夠配套及能以文明及有建設性的方式及以子女福利作出發點與她溝通時，再作檢討。母親表示已接受父親會與女友一起的事實，但由於子女現年紀尚小，不太明白父母的離異，及認為父親的女友的出現令他們感到不安。因此，她強調在探視進行中要求女友不出現，以免子女再受到傷害及影響。
30. 兒子向社工表示很喜歡父母，亦知道他們已分開居住，但還是不接受他們的分開。他很希望與父母及妹妹一起，亦表示在調查間有幾次一家人在一起，這些相處的時間他感到很開心。他表示很喜歡與父親見面及玩耍，但對他經常遲到及講大話，例如他違反承諾，沒作出探視，感到有點失望。他表示不希望在探視時見到父親的女友。如一定要見她，最多為一分鐘。最初，他表示願意與父親留宿探視，但他的女友必須不在他的家；但他後來表示希望父親到母親家作留宿探視，因他覺得母親的家才是他的家。
31. 女兒亦表示喜歡父親。當問及父親女友時，她表現不安，大叫媽媽及跑到母親身旁。她表示在父親家裡見過其女友一次。當問及她是否喜歡見女友時，她不作回答。至於留宿探視，女兒表示母親說不可在父親家裡留宿；但她後來在父親家裡第二次單獨與調查社工見面，卻表示想到父親家裡留宿，而這是父親叫她向社工作出要求。
32. 母親向社工表示，自法庭於2017年11月1日頒令後，她已盡力配合探視安排，但父親除了經常遲到接子女外，亦經常遲一至三個小時才送回子女；他亦經常在沒有事先通知下不出現，令子女感到失望。另外，父親亦會在界定探視時間以外要求見子女，令母親及外傭無所適從。為了避免爭拗，令子女夾在兩人的矛盾中，母親只好順從父親的要求。父親卻有另一面的說法。他表示母親亦曾遲了讓他探視子女，他承認會在界定探視以外探視子女，希望多點時間與子女相處，特別是在英國續書的兒子。再者，母親亦不常提供兒子的成績表；因此他希望了解兒子的情況。
33. 社工指總括而言，父母兩人均關心子女的健康及成長，但由於父母以往及愉快的婚姻經歷，以及因離異所帶來彼此的緊張關係，以及他們的溝通問題，加上雙方價值觀不同，令彼此在父母的合作出現不協調。父親希望盡快處理離婚申請，以便他與女友結婚及令子女接受他的新婚姻。母親卻不希望讓年幼子女現階段知道父母的離異而受到傷害，她很想保護子女。社工以子女的最佳利益為依歸，表示縱使父親聲稱對子女的決定，如兒子的升學給予意見，但似乎未有太多的參與，父母雙方亦溝通欠佳，母親的決定也沒有影響兩名子女與父親的關係。因此社工認為維持現時的管養模式實有利兩名子女在各方面的安排。為了兩名子女的福利，社工建議母親獲得單獨管養權，父母應一起接受調解服務及共享親職輔導，改善溝通及共識。
34. 至於探視，社工建議維持現有的日間探視；
即星期三下午4時至6時；
星期五下午4時至9時；
星期日早上10時至下午4時；
於子女的長假期，父親可獲額外的日間探視，具體時間由雙方協議安排 。至於留宿探視，社工建議父母透過共享親職輔導及調解服務商討。
雙方的證供
35. 父親共存檔4份誓章，而母親共存檔3份誓章。兩人於誓章內互相指責。
36. 父親指雙方因性格和價值觀不合而引致爭拗 。他指母親懷有兒子後，不但仍吸煙喝酒，還經常到烏煙瘴氣的聯誼會搓麻將。就算兒子出生後，母親仍繼續要父親陪她夜夜笙歌，在他苦苦哀求下，父親才可先行回家照顧兒子。父親亦指母親只依賴傭人照顧子女，子女受傷也不知情。父親稱母親刁蠻任性才令婚姻破裂。2015年6月母親突然帶著子女遷出前居所，令父親無法與子女見面。其實當時母親並非與子女同住；子女只是週末才到母親家裡留宿。另外，父親稱母親阻礙他的探視，拒絕讓子女與他的女友見面全出於妒忌及欠缺自信，害怕女友取代她在子女心目中的地位。
37. 母親則指婚後不久，父親經常夜歸，甚至在外渡宿。後來她發現父親嫖妓及有外遇。當時她希望幼子有一個完整的家庭才一直啞忍父親的不忠，雖然父親於2010年遷出前婚姻居所，他仍經常回家渡宿，並與母親保持夫妻關係。因此，母親再度懷孕，並於2013年誕下女兒。母親希望父親會回心轉意；他倆是於2016年10月才斷絕夫妻關係。她指2015年6月至12月是兩人關係最惡劣的時段。雖然她與子女遷出舊居，亦沒有告知父親新住址，父親仍一直可透過女傭和司機安排探視。另外，母親稱雖然在7年間，她任由父親自由出入她的居所，但父親沒有珍惜兒子女共渡時光，永遠以他本人和女友為先，用子女作為離婚分產的籌碼。縱使父親作出探視申請，但事實上父親並不珍惜探視，不但經常遲到，還無故缺席失聯，令子女失望。母親續指父親的作息及飲食時間顛倒；探視會在晚飯前讓子女吃不健康的零食，以糖果、冰淇淋和玩具引誘子女，不考慮子女的作息，有時更凌晨才送子女回家。對於患有過度活躍症的兒子來說，有規劃的生活十分重要，而且兒子更不適宜進食高糖食物。另外，母親指探視期間，父親只顧把玩手機或讓子女把玩他的手機。兒子本以為父親因忙於工作才不同住。後來父親不但突然透露打算與母親離婚已令兒子受到傷害，還表示會與女友再婚，引致子女對女友反感。母親指父親只顧及自己和女友的感受，偷偷帶子女與女友會面，向子女表示不用向母親透露真相，令子女無所適從。父親亦不時向子女表示母親不喜歡女友，更指母親不會讓子女與他見面。雖然在雙方同意下，法庭已頒發中期界定探視命令，父親不時向子女表示母親不會讓他們見面，不知下次何時再見。他也不時向兒子提及訴訟進程。母親指這些言論牽動子女的負面情緒，令他們受到更大的傷害。除此之外，母親指自父親於2010年遷出後，從沒要求子女到他的居所留宿。之前所有的留宿探視均在她的居所，由兩名家傭協助下進行。這麼多年以來，父親從沒準備子女到他的居所留宿的配套，只稱已購買大床與子女同睡。另一方面，他又指將會與女友結婚。於是母親質疑父親是否打算他與女友及子女四人同睡。
管養權
38. 父親表示希望作為一個負責任的家長，參與子女的重要安排，他亦指有能力就品格、運動及日常生活等教導子女。因此，他要求獲頒共同管養的命令。
39. 法庭已多次解釋共同管養與單獨管養只是一線之差 ；就算母親獲得單獨管養，父親仍有權參與子女的重要決定及安排。單獨管養不等同母親可以單方面作出決定。每當子女面對重要決定，母親在作出任何決定之前，必須咨詢父親；父親有權發表意見，母親亦有責任考慮父親的意見。事實上，父親不需要共同管養權也可作為一個負責任的家長，參與子女的安排。
40. 況且，沒有爭議的是，於過去10年以來，所有關乎子女的安排均由母親作主。雖然母親經常向父親滙報，但他的參與不多。例如︰母親一直蒐集子女升學的資料，多次往英國了解，亦曾邀請父親一同參加講座，亦將有關資料給他，但父親不但沒有回應，更從沒聯絡兒子學校或監護人了解兒子在英國的情況。他續向社工表示要待與女友結婚後才會到英國了解兒子的學校情況。父親再婚與兒子的學業全無關連。除了管養權，雙方就子女的贍養安排亦有爭拗。父親必須在所有上述爭議解決後才可獲得絕對離婚命令，與女友結婚。到時，兒子可能已步入高中。
41. 另一例子，兒子被診斷患有輕度過度活躍症時，母親嘗試與父親商討應否使用藥物。雖然父親有作回應，但他的回應只是建議各自上網搜查資料，形同虛設。
42. 父親承認子女的安排一直由母親決定，他亦沒有異議。可是自從訴訟開始，父親便開始反對或質疑母親的決定。例如，父親希望女兒學習鋼琴，母親安排單獨授課，而父親則要求於柏斯琴行接受集體課程。其實，各琴行的集體鋼琴課程均猶如幼兒的唱遊班，並非真正學習彈奏鋼琴。就算最初是集體上學，到了4歲左右便需單獨授課。另外，兒子對建築學有興趣，於是母親安排他參加「小小建築師」的校外課程，而兒子亦樂在其中。可是父親卻認為參加此課程會局限兒子將來的發展。建築師是受人專重的專業；兒子有志成為建築師並無不妥。作為父母，應是因材施教；兒子對該科目有興趣，但父親卻偏偏反對。況且，這只是兒子放假回港的一個校外活動，他在英國學校亦有參加游泳、棒球、鋼琴等課外活動。單獨鋼琴及「小小建築師」的課程均比較昂貴。父親以乎只考慮費用而沒有考慮子女的需要和福祉。
43. 父母兩人之間其中一個最大的爭議是父親現階段應否要求子女與女友見面及建立關係。一直以來，子女均以為父親因工作而非同住，從沒想過父母離異的問題。法庭已提醒父親，孩子的世界裡面最重要的是家庭和學校。父親突然向兒子宣佈即將與母親離婚，對子女來說已是晴天霹靂。父親更指會與女友結婚。很自然地，子女會認為父親是因為女友而放棄家庭，於是對女友反感。在這情況下，父親不但要求子女會見女友、與女友擁抱及隱瞞母親，只會令子女更難受。2018年4月17日的心理專家報告內，專家已提醒父親應考慮子女對父母離異的認知和接受能力，更應該諒解子女的步伐。他應鞏固他與子女的關係才讓子女慢慢理解及適應家庭的變異。於2018年4月19日的更新社會福利署調查報告內，兒子表示不接父母離異，仍希望他們會復合。他表示願意與父親作留宿探視，但父親的女友必須不在場。他亦表示不希望在探視時與女友見面。如一定要見面，最多為一分鐘。當女兒被問及女友時亦表現不安。父親向兒子提及離婚及再婚後，兒子很傷心。父親承認兒子因此而哭泣，但堅持兒子沒母親描述般哭得那麼厲害。父親明知子女仍未能接受父母離異及父親再婚，但仍堅持偷偷要子女與女友見面及聯絡，如心理學家所述，似乎父親最關注的是要子女融入他與女友的新生活而忽略了子女的感受。
44. 當然，父親與女友的關係已維持了十年，亦打算結婚。法庭明白父親渴望子女能與未來的妻子建立關係。可惜父親粗之過急，引來反效果。母親的立場是子女仍年幼，應待子女長大成人後才與女友見面。她的立場亦不可行。子女已知道父母離異及父親有女友，再繼續將他們蒙在鼓𥚃只會令他們更不安，無可適從及更容易受到傷害如父母均不能以合適的言詞解釋情況及將來的安排，兩人應共同聘用一名兒童心理學家向子女解釋及輔導。〔見97頁〕
45. 雖然雙方都表示希望和平合作 ，但雙方均要求對方先改變態度和行為才有合作的空間。心理專家細問下，發現雙方對重要事項的觀點有重大分歧，雙方亦沒有互信，父親對子女的感愛亦欠敏感。因此，父母的合作空間極渺茫。另外，父母兩人對處事及子女安排的意見也有重大分歧，祈望雙方合作，只會引致更多衝突〔見92，93，95，97頁〕。社工亦持相同意見〔103-104頁〕。
46. 父親指他可能學力不及母親，但對子女的身心和日常生活可作輔導。父親並不需要管養權也可以教導子女。
47. 基於上述種種因素，最切合子女福祉的安排是由母親獲得單獨管養權。
探視
48. 父親指母親以各式各樣的手法阻礙探視。母親亦同意界定探視；她反對的是父親於探視時要求子女接觸其女友及於界探視以外突然作探視。中期界定探視是由父親提出。當時他由知名的家事法律師代表，理應明白界定探視的意思。後來因他在母親不知情的情況下，於非探視時間作出探視，雙方起衝突。父親竟稱以為界定探視以外可隨意作探視。他的說法令人難以接受。不能爭議的是，有規劃及恒常的生活模式對子女的福祉有利。父親不能只顧及自己的意慾和感受。他的行為不但不尊重法庭的命令，亦只會令子女無可適從。
49. 父親要求每星期作3次探視。母親則指女兒上了小學，功課增加，父親的建議不可行。她續指父親根本不珍惜與子女相聚的時間，經常遲到、缺席、令子女失望，就算進行探視，父親也只顧把玩手機，不專注子女。父親否認母親的指控。可是，子女及專家均確認母親的投訴︰
(1) 兒子向心理專家表示︰
“… Also, the child verbalized his wish for his father’s attention more, rather than seeing the latter preoccupied with his phone use. This partly illustrates the child’s wish to be accepted and not be judged based on his performance, a universal need for all-age; his wish for more father-son quality time as well as his unspoken fear to reveal his inner feeling before the father.”
(2) 女兒向心理專家透露︰
“… did not enjoy the time when her father focused on finishing a horror movie on TV and ignored her clear expression of fear and her wish to stop the horror movie and do something also together … she disliked her father’s style of story-telling because the latter would only flip the pages but not reading the stories for and with her …The child impressed to be verbalizing her wishes for the father to attend to her feelings, needs and pace appropriately.
(3) 心理專家的意見︰
“… both children expressed ambivalent feelings towards the father and verbalized some activities that the did not enjoy doing with the latter in particular. They both wish (The Father) could be more sensitive to their feelings in daily setting and be more emotionally present as well as attentive during access. The children’s genuine expression shed light on their hope and trust for (The Father) to show greater concerns for their feelings in order to build stronger bonds with them. …
Despite (The Father) demonstrated skills to attend to the children’s needs and be able to mix with them in respective joint interviews, his perception of his very good relationship with both children was not as indicative as he thought from his children’s eyes without considering the children’s level of understanding, pace, acceptability, and feelings towards parental divorce, (The Father) appeared to be more concerned about how he wanted the children to integrate in his upcoming new stage of life with his girlfriend.”
(4) 於更新社會福利署調查報告內，兒子指︰
“他更表示喜歡與父親見面及玩耍，但對他經常遲到及講大話，例如他應承出現卻沒有出現，他感到有點失望。”
50. 另外，無論母親已多次以書面（包括電話訊息）投訴於探視期間，子女的飲食顛倒，例如有一次女兒一整天只用餐一次。
51. 縱觀上述情況，母親的憂慮可以理解，雖然父親與子女的相處表面融洽，但心理專家認為父親高估了他與子女的親密程度。事實上子女均對探視的質素有所不滿；基本上子女均指父親於探視期間心不在焉，忽視他們的感受，經常遲到或缺席等。眾所周知，探視是重質多於量。若探視質素差劣，每天見面也不會有利於父親與子女的關係。法庭明白父親希望多見子女，但探視期間，他對子女欠缺真正的關懷（emotionally absent）。心理專家指父親現時與子女的相處方式未能令子女感受到他的關愛，建議父親以子女可明白的方式加以緊鞏固與子女的關係；換言之，父親須改善探視的質素。
52. 父親要求繼續每星期3次的探視，而週末的探視改為留宿探視。兒子在英國就學，大部份的恒常探視只涉及女兒。女兒現已是小學生，需要時間完成日漸增加的功課，現時的探視安排會對她有壓力。另外，雖然父親要求多見子女，他本身亦要工作，更多次投訴頻繁的探視不但令他十分頻撲，更令他失去很多工作機會，引致他有經濟困難。父親是成年人，應妥善管理時間。按過去數年的經驗，父親亦可能因工作而遲到或缺席。這只會令子女感到不被重視及失望。
53. 另外，雖然父親一直要求留宿探視，但卻從沒準備合適的配套。他對子女的照顧亦有極大的改進空間。因此現階段，留宿探視並不合適。
54. 基於上述原因，本席下令︰
(1) 答辯人獲2名家庭子女的單獨管養權（施加離境管制）
(2) 呈請人獲以下的界定探視︰
(a) 每個星期三，下午4:30 至7:30；
(b) 每個星期日，上午10時至下午4時；
(c) 子女長假期時，父親可獲額外日間探視，但必須於長假期首日的最少14日前經社工安排；
(d) 除上述界定探視外，父親不可再於答辯人不知情或不同意下探視子女；
(e) 如呈請人不能出席探視，必須於探視前最少24小時前以書面（即包括電話訊息）通知答辯人；
(f) 如任何一方需更改探視時間，必須於探視前最少48小時前以書面（即包括電話訊息）通知對方，而對方必須於24小時內回覆；
(g) 呈請人獲合理的電話探視。
(3) 雙方必須於14日內共同聘用一名兒童心理專家於兒子回港後的14天內向2名家庭子女解釋家庭的變異及本命令內的安排；
(4) 社會福利調查主任須於2020年11月9日或之前存檔有關向子女解釋家庭變異及探視的進度報告；
(5) 雙方於2020年11月24日上午9時30分出席於第10庭的進度報告聆訊；(預留一小時)
(6) 除非法庭作出命令，呈請人不可讓子女與其女友有任何接觸；
(7) 雙方必須於4個月內參加及完成「共享親職」的課程；
(8) 首次約見聆訊於2020年11月24日進度報告聆訊後一併處理；
(9) 本案不作訟費命令。
呈請人： 親自行事
答辯人： 由溫楊侯律師事務所轉聘周偉雄大律師代表出席聆訊
|