Court granted Father sole custody and care and control, rejecting Mother’s serious allegations of sexual assault
Family Law
In 鄭 v 周 [2025] HKFC 45, the Family Court granted the petitioner Father sole custody and sole care and control of his two daughters (aged 9 and 14 respectively), following the respondent Mother’s serious but unsubstantiated allegations against him of sexually assaulting their daughters. The Court further ordered that the Mother do have defined supervised access, while granting the elder daughter the discretion to decide for herself whether or not to attend.
Vivien Leung, instructed by Chaine, Chow & Barbara Hung, acted for the Father.
Sabina Sui provides her analysis of the judgment below.
The main plank of the Mother’s submissions rested on her allegations that the Father had sexually assaulted the daughters, citing support from her viva voce evidence and a transcript of a tape recording. After hearing submissions from the parties, the Court dismissed the allegations as unfounded and noted multiple inconsistencies in the Mother’s testimony. Furthermore, the Court held that the transcript lacked evidentiary value as it did not record the alleged incidents of sexual assault, nor was the content accurate or complete. Significantly, a police investigation did not result in any prosecution against the Father.
Having considered the children’s views, the evidence of the social worker and psychologist and other factors, the Family Court held that the best interests of the children lay in favour of granting the Father sole custody and sole care and control. Notably, the Court declined to order joint custody, noting that there was no reasonable prospect of co-operation between the parties and concerns over the Mother’s judgment and conduct (e.g. repeated non-compliance with court orders on access and psychological assessment), which could potentially harm the children’s well-being. The Court also found that the Mother lacked the capacity to make sound judgments in the best interests of her children.
A particularly noteworthy aspect of this case concerns the elder daughter’s access arrangement. While acknowledging that allowing a child discretion over attendance is an uncommon measure, the Court recognized the serious breakdown in the relationship between the Mother and the elder daughter. In particular, the Court took into account the elder daughter’s reasons given for refusing to see her Mother, namely, that the elder daughter wished to preserve, rather than damage, her relationship with her Mother by not seeing her Mother at this stage. The analysis illustrates the Court’s careful examination of a child’s degree of maturity through her reasoning.
This judgment underscores the Family Court’s meticulous approach to assessing serious allegations within contested family proceedings. It highlights the Court’s commitment to conducting rigorous factual determinations and adopting a flexible approach to custody, care and control, and access arrangements particularly with regard to older children. Above all, the decision reinforces the fundamental principle that the best interests of the children remain paramount in family law adjudication.
Vivien Leung
Vivien was acknowledged by Chambers and Partners (2025) as a “Band Spotlight” practitioner in Family/Matrimonial Law, and was also recognized by the Legal 500 (Asia-Pacific 2025) as a “Rising Star” in Family and Private Client practice areas.
Vivien advises on all aspects of matrimonial finance and children’s matters and has particular experience in handling divorce cases with a cross-border or international element.
Find out more from Vivien’s profile.
Sabina Sui
Sabina is developing a broad practice in general civil litigation, with a particular interest in personal injuries and public law matters. She is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, and accepts instructions in all areas of work.
Find out more from Sabina’s profile.
This article was first published on 7 April 2025.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.