HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Frederick Hui, Terence Luk, Serene Lam and Kenneth Yau, Zhong Lun Law Firm
2.3.3 Age/Maturity of the Child In proceedings affecting the interests of the child, such as relocation applications, the weight given to a child’s wishes and feelings scales progressively with their age and level of maturity, as there is no rigid statutory rule dictating how these views must be treated. Courts recognise that younger children may not fully grasp the long-term ramifications of a country-to-country move, and their preferences are often considered ephemeral or easily influenced by the parent they are currently addressing. Conversely, older children tend to hold much stronger, more stable views. Established by past cases, a child’s view generally start to carry weight when they are over ten years old ( Re R ( Residence Order ) [2010] 1 FLR 509 quoted in 唐 對陳 [2026] HKFC 94). The views of the 13-year-old and 14-year-old children (as they then were at the time of the appeal) were described as strong and rational in YSYM v LHB [2020] HKCA 586. 2.3.4 Importance of Keeping Children Together The family court has expressed its general reluctance to order separation of siblings, acknowledging that splitting up the children of a family is inherently unde - sirable and rare from the view of their welfare. As not - ed by Bokhary DJ (as he then was) in W v W [1981] HKC 466, judges should examine all the relevant circumstances very closely and should avoid mak - ing such split orders whenever reasonably possible, unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. This priority is especially heightened in relocation dis - putes, where the mutual emotional support of siblings is considered even more critical to their welfare than in standard domestic care and control determinations within the jurisdiction. Because the children’s welfare serves as the court’s first and paramount considera - tion, judges are generally reluctant to issue orders that legally formalise a split, recognising that keep - ing brothers and sisters together is often in their best long-term interests and typically aligns with their own
on the left-behind parent’s contact with the child. The court places substantial weight on the loss of con - tact with a left-behind parent, as depriving a child of regular, direct parental contact is generally considered contrary to their best interests unless extreme circum - stances dictate otherwise. Several critical factors influence how this loss is evalu - ated and balanced against the proposed move: • The depth and strength of the child’s existing relationship with the left-behind parent dictate the level of detriment the child will experience upon departure. • The financial resources and practical logistics of the family are crucial, a lack of funds makes contin - ued physical access highly challenging, whereas a left-behind parent’s financial ability to afford regular flights or host holiday visits can help mitigate the loss. • The court heavily scrutinises the relocating parent’s willingness to facilitate future contact. If the appli - cant is shown to be obstructive or uncooperative, the court may deny the relocation out of fear that the child will be permanently cut off. • The viability of alternative contact safeguards – such as regular holiday visits, video calls, and formal court undertakings to co-operate – plays a major role in the court’s assessment. • The potential harm caused by the left-behind parent – in instances involving domestic violence, pre-existing irreparable relational damage, or the child’s firm, rational reluctance – will serve as a factor for the court to in turn limit access to protect the child’s best interest. 2.3.6 Which Reasons for Relocation Are Viewed Most Favourably? While the court views the guidance set out in Payne v Payne altogether to evaluate the relocation applica - tion, besides the well-thought-out and practical plans, it routinely shows sympathy toward an applicant seek - ing to return to their home country. A clear illustration is YCR also known as CRY v YSJ nee SJE , where the court granted leave to an expa - triate mother working in Hong Kong to relocate to her home country of Canada with her children, while
wishes and feelings. 2.3.5 Loss of Contact
The court routinely applies the guidance set out in Payne v Payne when evaluating a relocation applica - tion, paying particular attention to the potential impact
71 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook