The four-month-old boy is currently under the Social Welfare Department’s care as part of a three-year protection order issued by the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court in June.
In the judgement, High Court judge Queeny Au-Yeung said the application was “entirely inappropriate”, saying the writ of habeas corpus was only available for a detention, which would only be issued when ordinary remedies are not applicable.
“It is not appropriate to bring habeas corpus proceedings in respect of a child in care,” she said.
The father claimed the department showed no evidence that Danny was facing any risk of harm.
But Au-Yeung disagreed, saying the parents did not undergo any pre- and postnatal checks, while the boy had not been vaccinated yet.
The judge also ruled that the father does not have to shoulder the litigation costs, as no public interest was involved in the case.
“It is an application by a parent who, having a child delivered by his own means, fixates on his own way of raising his child without regard to the risks that he exposes his child to,” Au-Yeung added.
Tsang told reporters after the hearing that they now plan to turn to the juvenile court.
“The High Court tends to be conservative because the care order was approved by the Juvenile Court. The judge in the High Court wants us to make the application to the Juvenile Court directly because the judge doesn’t want to intervene in the court’s decision. That’s why my application was failed,” he said.
“But in the judgement, it inspired me that I should have done something. I should have made some application to the Juvenile Court to discharge the order.”