It is not uncommon to receive instructions from grandmother clients in respect of custody applications for their grandsons. However, there are few written judgments and no reported cases to provide clear authority as to such an applicant’s rights as a third party, or a socalled ‘stranger’. This article reviews two separate cases handled by the author, one concerning divorce and the other guardianship, in which the issue was touched upon at the time of hearing the applications.

FCMC 3168/2003

In the divorce case FCMC 3168/2003, the paternal grandmother sought to intervene and claimed custody of her grandson. The father
of the child was then in prison. The grandmother had taken care of the child for a long period of time. The mother fought for custody of
the child in the course of the suit instituted by her.

The issue arose as to whether the grandmother as a third party had the right to apply for custody of the child in what was otherwise
a private custody suit between the parents. Although Hong Kong’s family law generally lags behind that of England, it was submitted
by counsel for the grandmother that the prevailing laws were roughly equivalent. Section 19(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap 192) (MPPO) and s 48A of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap 179) (MCO) are relevant.

Section 19(1) of the MPPO provides: The court may make such order as it thinks fit for the custody and education of any child of the family who is under the age of 18 -

(a) in any proceedings for divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation, before, by or after the final decree;

(b) where such proceedings are dismissed after the beginning of the trial, either forthwith or within a reasonable period after the dismissal; and in any case in which the court has power by virtue of this subsection to make an order in respect of a child it may instead, if it thinks fit, direct that proper proceedings be taken for making the child a ward of the court.

It was therefore submitted by counsel for the grandmother that the court had unrestricted power to make the custody order under s 19(1).

Section 48A of the MCO provides:

(1) Where the court has jurisdiction by virtue of this Ordinance or the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance
(Cap 192) to make an order for the custody of a child and it appears to the court that there are exceptional circumstances making it impracticable or undesirable for the child to be entrusted to either of the parties to the marriage or to any other individual, the court may, it if thinks fit, make an order committing the care of the child to the Director of Social Welfare. ...

(3) While an order made by virtue of this section is in force with respect to a child, the child shall continue in the care of the
Director of Social Welfare notwithstanding any claim by a parent of the child or another person.

Subsection (1) specifically contemplates ‘any other individual’ in addition to the parents.

Section 19 of the MPPO mirrors s 18 of the UK Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 (MPPA), while s 48A of the MCO mirrors s 43 of the UK Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA).

The issue of third party custody arose in the care proceedings in CB (a minor) [1981] 1 All ER 16, in which the Court of Appeal recognised the court’s power to grant custody of a child to a third party under s 43 of the MCA. The divorce cases of Pryor v Pryor 1947] 1 All ER 381 and B and B v H (L intervening) [1962] 1 All ER 29 were decided to the same effect. In those cases, references to ‘any other individual’ were construed by reference to the broader language of ‘such provision as appears just’ in s 193(1) of the Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.

Further support for this construction can be found in Rayden’s Law and Practice in Divorce and Family Matters in All Courts (Twelfth
Edition), which at page 958 paragraph 23 suggests the following:

“Persons who may apply for orders. An application for an order relating to the custody or education of a child, or for an order committing him to the care of a local authority under s 43 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or for a supervision order under s 44 of that Act, may be made by the petitioner or the respondent spouse. In addition, the guardian of any child of the family or any other person who by virtue of a court order has the custody or control of the child or the care or supervision may apply for such an order without the necessity of first obtaining leave to intervene in the cause. It would appear to be necessary for any other person who wishes to seek such an order first to obtain leave to intervene in the suit.”

This can be cross-referenced to r 92(3) of Hong Kong’s Matrimonial Causes Rules:

Without prejudice to the right of any other person entitled to apply for an order as respects a child, the guardian of any child of the family and any other person who, by virtue of an order of a court, has the custody or control of such a child or his care or supervision in pursuance of s 48 of the Ordinance may, without obtaining leave to intervene in the cause, apply by summons for such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (1).

The learned judge in FCMC 3168/2003, making further reference to page 974 paragraph 42 of Rayden’s which states that third parties may intervene on questions of custody, gave leave to the grandmother to intervene and apply for the child’s custody having no doubt as to the conformity of the Hong Kong and English laws.

FCMP 121/2007

A similar issue arose in FCMP 121/2007, whereby the maternal grandmother sought to apply as a third party to be appointed the guardian of her grandson as well as for his custody. The child had been abandoned for several years and the whereabouts of the parents could not be ascertained. The parents showed no interest in the application, did not indicate any intention to defend and did not file any affidavit in opposition.

The Social Investigation Report favoured the grandmother to take custody and recommended that the existing child care arrangement
rendered by her should be maintained. However, the court went no further than to order her appointment as the guardian of the child, declining to order custody due to lack of jurisdiction. This finding was made pursuant to s 7 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap 13) (GMO) on the language of ‘on the application of any person’ after considering the welfare principle under s 3 of the GMO.

Section 3(1) provides:

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 ... the court -

(i) shall regard the welfare of the minor as the first and paramount consideration and in having such regard shall give due consideration to -

(A) the wishes 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 ...

It was submitted again that the English laws which prevailed in the 1970s were effectively the same as the present laws in Hong Kong. Professor PM Bromley stated in Family Law (Sixth Edition) at page 367 that the court has inherent jurisdiction to appoint guardians, which reconciles with Rayden’s at page 988 which further elaborates that guardianship is an office of trust. Bromley opined that in determining whom to appoint as guardians ‘the court, according to its ordinary practice, gives a preference to the nearest blood relations, and does not appoint strangers when fit persons are to be found among the relations’. In Re R (an infant) (custody to non-parent) [1974] 1 All ER 1033, a guardianship application under the UK Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (GMA), their lordships concurred that, by looking at the parliamentary intent of s 9(1) of the GMA, a custody order could be made in favour of someone whom one might, for convenience, call a stranger.

When we compare s 9(1) of the GMA, which states that ‘the court may ... make such order regarding ... the custody of the minor’, with the identical s 10(1) of the GMO, it is not difficult to see that the same legislative intent is in play. It is and was submitted, like it was
in FCMC 3168/2003, that the application by the grandmother was faithful and proper and that the court may make a custody order in her favour under the welfare principle in s 3 of the GMO.

Further reading of the laws relating to children reveals that a guardianship application may even be made by minors themselves, if someone acts on their behalf or if they have sufficient understanding to instruct next friends to act. As the court will pay regard to minors’ wishes, it is envisaged that either close relatives or persons they are familiar with could become guardians appointed by the court.

Conclusion

While the question of a third party’s right for custody in divorce proceedings is settled, clear answers remain to be provided as to whether custody of a minor can also be vested in a third party in guardianship applications. There seems to be a strong link between the appointment of a guardian and his or her right to custody of a minor, since a guardian is a person who is legally entitled to parental rights and duties in relation to a minor.

The English Acts relating to guardianship have been long since repealed. Their replacements, the consolidated Children Acts, have
provided good solutions to disputes between parents and intended guardians. Hong Kong’s Law Reform Commission has made proposals to revamp the laws relating to children, and it is to be hoped that the above issues and others can be settled through legislation rather than through future court proceedings.

Tony WH Luk
Solicitor
Ko & Chow
lukk@netvigator.com

由第三者提出的照顧未成年人申請
Tony Luk探討了在家庭糾紛方面，由第三者提出管養權申請所面對的困難，並促請對相關的兒童法例作出修補。

律師接到作為祖母(或外母)的當事人，就其孫兒(或外孫兒)的申請管養事宜向律師作出委託，這是常見的事情。然而，法院在這一方面的書面判決並不多，亦沒有經報導的案例，就該申請人作為第三者或所謂的「局外人」之權利提供清晰的典據。本文討論兩宗曾經由作者處理的案件，一宗涉及離婚，另一宗則涉及監護，而該等問題，在法庭就該等申請的聆訊中論及。

FCMC 3168/2003

在FCMC 3168/2003的離婚案件中，祖母提出申請，要求法庭批准其介入並獲得對其孫兒的管養權。當時該名孩子的父親正在獄中，而該祖母已經照顧了其孫兒一段頗長的時間。孩子的母親則在其提起的訴訟中，與祖母爭奪該名孩子的管養權。

該案所爭議的問題是，祖母作為第三者，是否有權在孩子的父母親的私人管養權訴訟中，向法庭就該名孩子的管養權提出申請。香港的家事法一般而言雖然落後於英國，但祖母的代表律師指出，香港的現行法例與英國所實行的大體相近，當中涉及的法律條文為《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》(第192章)第19(1)條及《婚姻訴訟條例》(第179章)第48A條。

《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第19(1)條規定：
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) 如此等法律程序在審訊開始後遭駁回，則隨即或在駁回法律程序後的一段合理期間內；

而在任何案件中如法庭憑藉本款有權就子女作出命令，則法庭若認為適宜，可改為作出指示，着令採取恰當的法律程序，使該子女成為受法庭看護的人。

因此祖母的代表律師稱，法庭在第19(1)條下擁有不受限制的權力頒發管養令。

《婚姻訴訟條例》第48A條規定：
(1) 凡法院憑藉本條例或《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》(第192章)具有就任何子女的管養作出命令的司法管轄權，而法院覺得由於情況特殊，將該子女交託婚姻的任何一方或任何其他人看管並不切實可行或不適宜，則法院如認為適當，可命令將該子女交由社會福利署署長照顧。⋯⋯

(3) 在憑藉本條作出的命令對任何子女生效期間，即使該子女的父親或母親或另一人提出任何申索，該子女仍須繼續由社會福利署署長照顧。

第(1)款規定除了父母親外，還特別規定了「任何其他人」。《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第19(1)條可比照英國的《1970年婚姻法律程序與財產法》第18條，而《婚姻訴訟條例》第48A條則可比照英國的《1973年婚姻訴訟法》第48A條。

第三者管養權的論題於CB (a minor) [1981] 1 All ER 16一案的照顧法律程序中產生，而上訴法庭在當中承認，根據《婚姻訴訟法》第43條，法庭有權授予第三者一名孩子的管養權。在Pryor v Pryor [1947] 1 All ER 381和 B and B v H (L intervening) [1962] 1 All ER 29這兩宗離婚案件中，法庭亦作出了相同的裁決。該等案件中所提述的「任何其他人」，乃參照Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925第193(1)條所載的較寬泛用語—「看來公平的規定」來解釋。

其他對這一解釋的進一步支持， 可參見 Rayden’s Law and Practice in Divorce and Family Matters in All Courts (Twelfth Edition)一案，當中的第958頁第23段稱：

「有權申請法庭頒發命令的人士。根據《1973年婚姻訴訟法》第43條而提出的申請，尋求法庭頒發與子女的管養或教育有關的命令，或是尋求法庭頒發將其交與地方當局照顧的命令，或是根據該法例第44條，尋求法庭頒發監管命令，可以由呈請人或是由作為答辯人的配偶提出。此外，任何家庭子女的監護人，和任何憑藉法院命令管養、管束、照顧或監管子女的其他人，均可無須先行向法院取得介入該項訴訟的許可而申請如此的一項命令。對於其他欲尋求法庭頒發一項如此命令的人士，他們看來需要先行取得介入該項訴訟的許可。」

以上的論述可與香港的《婚姻訴訟規則》相互參照：

在不損害任何其他有權就子女申請作出命令的人的權利下，任何家庭子女的監護人，和任何憑藉法院命令而依據本條例第48條管養、管束、照顧或監管子女的其他人，均可無須法院許可其介入訴訟而以傳票方式申請第(1)款所述的命令。

在FCMC 3168/2003一案中，法官進一步提述Rayden第974頁第42段，當中載明第三者可以就管養權介入訴訟，故祖母有權介入訴訟並申請對孩子的管養權，明確了香港與英國法例之間的一致性。

FCMP 121/2007

在FCMP 121/2007案件中亦出現同樣的問題。案中作為第三者的外祖母提出申請，要求獲得法庭委任其作為其外孫的監護人，以及獲得對其外孫的管養權。該名外孫已被他的家人遺棄了數年，父母下落不明，而對於外祖母提出該申請，他/她們亦不表關心，並無任何有意提出抗辯的意圖，亦沒有提交任何反對該申請的誓章。

社署的調查報告贊成給予該外祖母其外孫的管養權，並建議維持她現行對其外孫的照顧安排。然而，法庭只頒令委任她作為孩童的監護人；由於法庭並不具有相關的司法管轄權力，故拒絕就管養權作出頒令。法庭的這一裁斷，是在考慮了《未成年人監護條例》(第13章)第3條下的福利原則，並依據該條例第7條，就其所述的「在接獲任何人提出的申請後」作出。

第3(1)條規定：

有關未成年人的管養或教養問題，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⋯⋯法院─

(i) 須以未成年人的福利為首要考慮事項，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⋯⋯需要再度指出的是，英國在二十世紀七十年代所普遍使用的法例，與香港的現行法例實質相同。

需要再度指出的是，英國在二十世紀七十年代所普遍使用的法例，與香港的現行法例實質相同。Professor PM Bromley在《家事法》(第六版) 第367頁中指出，法庭具固有司法管轄權委任監護人，這與Rayden的第988頁相符，而後者進一步闡述了監護權是一項信託職務。Bromley認為法庭在考慮委任何人作為監護人時，「會根據通常的做法，就是優先考慮與其血緣關係最親近的人。假如在親屬中可以找到合適的人選，法庭便不會委任陌生人作為孩童的監護人」。在Re R (an infant) (custody to non-parent) [1974] 1 All ER 1033一案中，就一項根據《1971年英國未成年人監護法》(以下簡稱《未成年人監護法》)而提出的監護權申請，上議院法官在考慮了國會對《未成年人監護法》第9(1)條的立法意圖後一致認為，頒令授予一名為方便緣故而稱為局外人的人士管養權，乃合適的做法。

當我們將《未成年人監護法》 第9(1)條 (當中稱「法庭可⋯作出有關⋯對未成年人的管養命令」) ，與相同的《未成年人監護條例》第10(1)條進行比較時，不難看出二者具有相同的立法意圖。如FCMC3168/2003的案件一般，該名祖母所提出的申請是誠實和適當的，法庭可根據《未成年人監護條例》第3條的福利原，頒發有利於她的管養令。

當我們進一步查看與兒童有關的法例時，會發現監護申請甚至可以由未成年人自己提出，前提是需要有人代表他們行事，或是他們充分理解如何委託訴訟代理人代表他們行事。由於法庭重視未成年人的意願，因此可以預見，他的近親或是他所熟悉的人，將會被法庭委任成為該名未成年人的監護人。

結語

雖然在離婚法律程序中，有關第三者的管養權問題已獲得解決，但對未成年人的管養權，是否亦可以透過監護權申請而歸屬於第三者，我們仍期待能獲得提供清晰的答案。監護人的委任，以及其管養未成年人的權利，二者看來存在強而有力的關連，因為在照顧該名未成年人方面，法律賦予監護人享有父親的權利和責任。

在英國，與監護權有關的法例很久以前已被廢除，並由綜合了各項有關規定的《子女法》來取代，而對於父、母親以及有意成為監護人的人士之間的爭議，該法例提供了良好的解決方法。香港法律改革委員會已就與兒童有關的法例提出修訂建議，我們期望上述的以及其他問題，將可以透過立法而非法庭的訴訟程序來解決。

陸永雄
律師
高覺輝律師行
lukk@netvigator.com