F 訴 H

Judgment Date02 May 2000
Year2000
Judgement NumberFCMC8544/1998
Subject MatterMatrimonial Causes
CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
FCMC008544/1998 F 訴 H

FCMC8544 / 1998

香 港 特 別 行 政 區

區 域 法 院

婚姻訴訟案件編號1998年第 8544 宗

______________________



  F 呈請人
  and  
  H 答辯人

______________________

主審法官 :區域法院法官陳忠基內庭聆訊

聆訊日期 :2000年3月7日、8日 及 13日

判決日期 :2000年5月2日

____________

判案書

____________

1. 此申請由呈請人 (女方)提出,她要求更改1999年5月5日頒發的管養令;根據該命令,答辯人(男方)在離婚訴訟中獲得雙方婚後唯一的子女的管養權。呈請人現請求法庭更改該命令,將該名子女的管養權改判給她。她亦要求大幅增加1999年3月2日發出的贍養令所規定的贍養費金額,根據該命令,答辯人須支付她贍養費每月7,000元。其實,早於1998年8月18日,由法庭將離婚判令頒給呈請人開始,訴訟雙方已正式離婚。為方便起見,本判案書內提及他們的時候,本席會稱他們為男方和女方。

背景

2. 訴訟雙方於1990年在香港結婚。他們的兒子於1994年出生,現時剛滿6歲。女方於婚後繼續其會計工作,直至生了孩子才成為全職家庭主婦;而男方則一直任職工程師,也是家庭的經濟支柱。

3. 約於1996年年底或1997年年初,雙方的婚姻關係開始惡化;女方於1997年10月23日,以男方有不合理行為為理由,向法庭提交離婚呈請書;是次訴訟的編號為1997年第11096號。但男方就她的申請提出爭議,向法庭提交答辯書,並以女方有不合理行為為理由,就離婚一事提出交相申請。然而,在1998年8月18日的聆訊當中,雙方作出妥協,決定放棄訴訟,不再爭議,並在男方同意下,由女方以一年分居為理由,提交另一份離婚呈請書,即本訴訟的呈請書。法庭於同日將暫准離婚令發給女方,而管養權及附屬濟助的問題,則押後至社會福利署完成調查工作後才處理。

4. 不過,社會福利署於1998年10月呈交的報告顯示,女方可能患有精神病,而且過去不止一次企圖自殺,但女方反過來亦指男方在情緒上或精神上有問題,怪不得社會福利主任在這樣的情況下,未能就管養權誰屬一事作出任何建議,只提議進一步調查,包括評核雙方及孩子的心理健康狀況。

5. 1999年1月,法庭收到進一步的社會調查報告和心理醫生報告,兩份報告的結論均認為男方是較合適的人選,建議將孩子的管養權批給男方。女方拒絕接受這項建議。1999年2月10日,歐陽暫委法官接手處理此事,將臨時管養權批給男方,同時替案件排期候審,聆訊定於4月進行,預計聆訊日數為四天。

6. 盡管法庭已發出臨時命令,而男方亦多次試圖執行該判令,然而女方仍拒絕將兒子交給男方。有關的詳情,歐陽暫委法官已在1999年5月5月的判決書中羅列出來,本席不想在此重覆,但有一點需要特別提出,就是歐陽法官在上述聆訊的最後階段,經聆聽雙方的證詞,又經聆聽撰寫報告的社會福利主任和臨床心理學家的證詞後,下令孩子的管養權歸男方所有,而女方則有探視權,但規定女方只能在社會福利署辦事處,在社會福利主任的監管下探視兒子;這樣的監管令為期一年。此外,社會福利署須定期呈交進度報告。女方現在要求更改的就是這項命令。

7. 聆訊過後,女方不但仍堅拒將兒子的管養權交給男方,還作出上訴許可申請,以期推翻上述管養令。她的申請已先後遭本庭及上訴庭拒絕。1999年8月6日,她更因拒絕交出孩子的管養權而犯上藐視法庭罪,被梁榮忠暫委法官判處入獄。及後,男方在社會福利署協助下取得孩子的實際管養權,女方亦隨之而獲得釋放。自此之後,孩子便一直由男方管養。可惜,雙方的爭拗並未能就此了結。在1999年9月至2000年2月的短短數月裏,女方已向法庭提出了數項申請,並呈上多份誓書以作佐證,她申請的項目包括更改管養權、探視權和贍養費,而此等申請最終合併起來,在2000年3月7日的聆訊中處理。

8. 基本上,女方現時要申述的是,她並非精神病患者,或至少不是歐陽暫委法官於上次聆訊時所指的,會影響她本人,以及她管教兒子的能力的那種精神問題。她又指出,由於男方現職的工作地點在內地,他只能將兒子交託其三姊H女士代為照料,但 H女士本身也得上班,還要照顧自己的女兒;因此,她認為男方目前為兒子作出的安排極不妥當,應將兒子的管養權還給她,因為有男方給她適當的經濟給養和贍養費,她可以將所有時間和精神用在照顧兒子上。

9. 對於女方的申請,男方當然反對。他害怕女方的精神病還沒有痊癒,令她不能正確認知兒子的福利和需要;原因是她傾向過份寵愛和縱容兒子,而不是給他適當的指引和訓導;同時,她亦會隔絕兒子與父親之間,以至所有近親之間的聯繫,因為她自己跟這些人都沒有交往。他坦承因工作關係而未能盡父親照顧兒子的責任,但他說他的姊姊可代為照顧孩子。鑑於女方有精神問題,同時又缺乏管教孩子的能力,他相信,為了兒子的利益著想,最好還是由他繼續管養兒子。

10. 由於女方提出是項申請,社會福利署於聆訊開展前不久,向法庭提交了一份新的社會調查報告;這份報告是由另一位社會福利主任李先生撰寫的。李先生的報告建議,歐陽暫委法官於1999年5月5日作出的監管令應繼續生效。李先生在聆訊期間的證詞,跟訴訟雙方一樣,內容都是廣泛而全面的。他澄清報告內的建議說,雖然他不支持女方申請更改管養令,相信男方應繼續擁有管養權,但他同意女方將來在探望兒子方面應有更大的自由度,包括可帶兒子到社會福利署以外的地方見面,當然,條件是她要遵守法庭的命令,每次探視後都將兒子帶回男方處。

11. 女方的證詞已相當清楚地顯示,她不同意先前的調查報告的一些調查結果以及當中一些觀察所得的資料,亦不認同歐陽暫委法官的裁決,特別是關於她的精神狀況的部份,以及最終頒下的管養令;她指管養令將管養權批給她的前夫,實屬違法。從這些證據可見,她這次申請似乎是要反對歐陽法官的裁決。縱然本席同意,女方和男方一樣,都是親自應訊,都得不到任何法律意見,也沒有代表律師,同時本席亦確信她真的很關心孩子的福利;可是,本席卻不能容許她假借申請更改命令為名,實際上對歐陽法官的命令提出上訴,又或是藉此以達成重審管養權問題的目的。她這樣做是於法不合的,而允許她這樣做亦是不對和不公平的。故此,本席會將本申請當作一項更改管養令的申請處理,並以孩子的整體福利和權益作為最重要的考慮因素。而她在這樣的申請中,基本上必須指出,自1999年5月,法庭作出該管養令以來,她本人,男方或孩子方面有甚麼改變,而這些改變又必須能證明,更改命令是合理和正確的。

12. 不過,在考慮訴訟雙方的證詞之前,本席有必要先參考上一份社會調查報告,心理報告以及歐陽暫委法官於1999年5月作出的判決。

13. 首先,盡管女方在這次聆訊當中堅決否認自己有精神病,但1999年的聆訊卻有清楚的證據,證明她當時是患有精神病的。臨床心理學家陳克文女士在1999年1月20日的心理報告內指出,女方的情況顯示她患有精神分裂症。以下是報告內有關的段落:

“Ms F came for the assessment in neat and tidy grooming. She was alert and well-oriented when interviewed. She was emotionally calm and stable throughout the sessions. But her speech reflected some mental disturbances in her thought processes and content. It was rather difficult to follow and understand the logic of what she said at times. This was partly associated with the fact that her thoughts were not linked and expressed in a very organized, coherent manner. Her thought content was also filled with delusions. Delusions are erroneous beliefs that are held despite strong evidence to the contrary. For instance, she indicated that she believed all people heard voices and had to take medication. She claimed that she and her son were taking a drug (not prescribed by any doctor) that could make her do what she wanted to do more easily. But she refused to disclose the name of the drug as she had to keep it secret. (If this is really her belief, it can be potentially very dangerous to both mother and child because of the possible health risks involved in taking unnecessary non-prescribed drugs). Additionally, she believed that the son was given to her by God and if the custody was granted to the father, then it would be disastrous to the whole world and all the people would suffer in pain. There was also a sense of grandiosity and exaggerated self-importance in some of her remarks such as describing herself as one of the most intelligent people in the world. Furthermore, Ms F admitted having heard voices (auditory hallucinations) in the past and she stated that she seemed to be hearing voices now because people around her were doing something irrational.

The aforementioned cognitive symptoms are part of the manifestation of a mental disorder called schizophrenia. Her history of mental illness is, in fact, quite long and chronic. Regarding the onset of symptoms, Ms F reported that she started to receive psychiatric intervention at an out-patient clinic in 1986 due to auditory hallucinations. Medication was stopped in 1992 because of satisfactory progress, but she relapsed in 1993, after which she switched to private psychiatrists for treatment. Her current psychiatrist, Dr Fung, reported that she has attended follow-ups regularly with good drug compliance over the recent months. But Ms F denied the severity of her psychiatric illness and minimized it to some concentration problems. It appears that her insight into her mental problems is limited at this stage. As regards her previous suicidal acts, she frankly revealed that there had been a total of five suicide attempts, all of which involved drug overdose. In retrospect, she claimed that she was forced to do something aberrant at that time and she chose to die instead of being controlled. It is possible that her suicidal attempts were more related to her underlying psychiatric disorder and delusional beliefs rather than insurmountable interpersonal stress”.

14. 歐陽暫委法官亦在判決書中就女方的精神狀況作出如下的裁斷 :

“女方的精神狀況

20. 女方是個精神病患者,曾入住醫院治療,此事令其耿耿於懷,在作證時仍想為1997年入院的事件[翻案],將責任推在男方身上。她不承認有精神病,只是精神不集中而已。女方雖說自己沒有精神病,但從陳姑娘的證供及女方作證的神態、內容看來,女方可能真有精神分裂的妄想症狀。她現時仍然看精神科醫生,三星期覆診一次,要吃藥。

21. 本席在考慮過她的證供,馮醫生的信,證物FOY-1,女方在庭上盤問及作證之神態後,在多半屬實的情況下裁定她是有精神分裂症。不過,她在本案應訊期間,完全有能力明白及分析所發生的事及法庭上所有過程,只是她要堅持一些主觀意念,不接受別人客觀、無敵意分析。舉例來說她認為已推翻了她有精神病之說,早已得值,答辯人無權爭管養權;又說男方因曾打駡兒子,影響兒子而無權爭取管養權;卻不考慮到她自己也曾在兒子面前數說男方的不是,影響兒子。她懂得保護及爭取自己和兒子的利益,本席認為她雖為精神病人,但在訴訟期間不需要起訴保護人”。

15. 如上所述,女方從沒承認自己患有任何精神病。她認為自己的精神問題只是因婚姻破裂和兒子管養權糾紛導致的失眠、抑鬱和焦慮;而且她說,由於有馮醫生定期的藥物治療,這些問題已經完全受控,情況令人滿意。女方並呈上了馮醫生寫的、關於她的現況的一封信來支持她的說法;那封信只有一頁紙,發信的日期是2000年3月7日,本席認為值得在此將原文全部引述出來 :

“This is to certify that F has been under my care since 24th March 1997. She presented with a history of a depressive disorder with severe sleep problem, depressed mood and poor concentration. She was hospitalised once at the Pamela Youde Hospital from July 3 to August 29, 1997. At that time she was diagnosed as suffering from a schizophrenia disorder. However since she was under my care subsequently, there was no evidence of any psychotic process. She has been regularly coming to my office for treatment. During the process of dissolution of her marriage she went through an emotional crisis but did not go into a decompensation. Her mental status has been stable during the past one year and she has been taking her medications regularly. On her last visit on 24th February 2000, her medication was being reduced. I believe she would continue her regular follow up at my office”.

16. 無論女方承認患有精神病與否,也盡管事實上如臨床心理學家在1999年所說,從來沒有一位中立的精神科醫生對女方的精神狀況作過全面的評估,亦不管她有的是哪一種精神問題,從馮醫生的信看來,她的問題在過去一年已穩定下來,同時,她的情況已見改善,藥物的份量亦因此而可以減輕。

17. 此外,社會福利主任李先生在聆訊前不久,透過電話與馮醫生連絡上,得馮醫生證實女方現時的情況。關於她的情況,李先生在最近期的報告中是這樣寫的:

“14. The Mother’s private psychiatrist Dr Fung was contacted. According to the psychiatrist, the Mother approached him for treatment of insomnia and was prescribed with medication. Dr Fung said that the mother could not accept his diagnosis of schizophrenia and only admitted that she has depression. Her drug compliance with satisfactory. Sometimes, she has unrealistic thought about the custody. She did not report any hallucination or paranoiac thought. She was emotionally stable. However, her living habit such as irregular sleep hours may not be appropriate for C H’s development. At present, she attends medical follow up once every four weeks”.

18. 無可否認,女方在聆訊期間給本席的印象是精神健全和頭腦清醒的。事實上,她在處理論據方面的表現相當出色,而她隨申請提交的數份誓詞,大致上亦寫得簡要和容易理解。

19. 可惜的是,盡管法庭已建議女方傳召馮醫生作證,但可能由於費用昂貴,她一直沒有這樣做。假如傳召了馮醫生,便可得知更多詳細的資料,包括她的病況,醫生對病情的預測,以及將來的治療各方面。特別是由於李先生和男方都表示懷疑女方的精神狀況,是否真的如她聲稱的一樣,自上次聆訊後短短的時間已有所改善;亦由於他們都很關注,究竟她會否在訴訟結束後,仍繼續接受治療和吃藥,馮醫生的證據就變得格外重要。單靠現有的證據,仍未能將女方的精神狀況十分清楚明確地顯示出來。

20. 不過,正如歐陽法官在她的判決書中指出,女方是否仍然患有精神病並非真正重點所在;重要的是,她能否適當地好好照顧兒子。說得準確一點,就是要看她自上次聆訊以來,是否在養育和指導孩子方面有所改進;有改進才可證明更改管養令是合理的。關於這方面,本席同樣須要先參考上一次聆訊的報告和判決書。

21. 社會工作者陳秋生在1999年擬備的進一步社會調查報告中,對女方有這樣的描述 :

“3. Ms F continues to receive psychiatric treatment from a private psychiatrist Dr Desmond Fung. She said that she had improved her sleep and concentration after taking medicine. According to Dr Desmond Fung, she has attended psychiatric treatment regularly. In spite of her mental problem, she was able to provide the child with basic care at this stage”.

:

:

:

10. Ms F was eager to obtain the child’s custody. She said that the child was given to her by heaven. If the child did not stay with her, the would come to an end. In case she was granted C H’s custody, she would apply for emigration to Singapore. She was confident that she could bring up the child herself.

11. Ms Fung insisted that she would not allow Mr H to see C H if Mr H did not take medicine to control his emotional problem. She detected through her brain wave that Mr H might have taken medicine recently. Nevertheless, he had to provide he was on medication before he could gain access to the child.

:

:

:

21. I do not doubt both...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT