Charles Russell Speechlys Successfully Secures Court Approval for Child Relocation
Charles Russell Speechlys today announces that Family Partner, Vanessa Duff, and Senior Associate, Kristie Wong, both in our Hong Kong office, have been successful in obtaining permission from the Family Court for the Mother to relocate with the Child of the Family to Zurich, Switzerland, after a 7-day trial in highly contested relocation proceedings in the Family Court. The Father’s competing relocation application to Los Angeles was dismissed. The Mother was also represented by Counsel Shaphan Marwah and Knut Fournier from Pantheon Chambers.
In this case, the Mother opposed the findings of the Social Welfare Officer (SWO) who preferred the Father’s relocation plan, including for the child to be placed in a public school in the US. Very little consideration had been given by the SWO to the Mother’s proposed relocation plan, and she seemingly took the view that the Father’s application should succeed as it was made first in time.
It was the Mother’s case that the SWO failed to give proper weight to her close relationship with the Child, the Child’s expressed wishes, his emotional and educational needs and the benefits to the Child of remaining with the Mother. In particular, the Mother had been the sole carer of the Child since May 2021, after the Father relocated from Hong Kong to the US for work; and the Mother had been primarily involved in helping the Child overcome his learning challenges. Shortly after the Father left Hong Kong, he stopped financial support for the Child.
Upon examining the evidence from the SWO, the Court did not accept the SWO’s conclusion that both parents had been primary caregivers. While the SWO found the Mother’s plans had changed throughout the process (as opposed to the Father having already a settled life in the US), the Court concluded that by constantly refining her plans for the Child, this showed that the Mother was working relentlessly to ensure that his interests were being catered for. The Court also commented that the mere say-so from the Child of him being “okay” in either city should have invited a deeper dive from the SWO in the light of his other comment that he would “never leave his mother”.
While a Social Investigation Report prepared by SWO carries weight and is an important factor for the Court to consider, the Court is not bound to follow the recommendations made in the report. The Court retains a discretion to make its own determination based on the overall circumstances of the case, the evidence presented, and, most importantly, the best interests of the children. The final decision made by the Judge may align with, differ from, or expand upon the SWO's findings and recommendations.
Commenting on the decision, Vanessa Duff explains:
This case exemplifies the Court's ability to exercise discretion and make Orders that can diverge from the findings of the Social Welfare Officer. The Court carefully considered the overall circumstances, the evidence presented, and, most importantly, the best interests of the Child.
Read the full judgment here.
