
Family LawCanada2024A couple — Canadian husband and Vietnamese-Canadian (dual-citizen) wife — with two children aged 8 and 11. The family had lived in Hanoi for the previous four years following the Canadian husband's posting; the children attended an international school in Hanoi; both parents had professional careers. Significant assets in both countries: family home in Hanoi (registered in joint LURC), a Toronto investment property in the wife's name, retirement and investment accounts in Canada and Vietnam, and a small consultancy business in Vietnam co-owned by both parents.
The wife filed for divorce in Toronto without notice to the husband, simultaneously seeking interim sole custody of the children and an order that the children be relocated to Toronto immediately. The Toronto court granted interim sole custody and a non-removal order for both children — at a hearing the husband did not attend because he had not yet been served with the proceedings.
The wife travelled to Hanoi the following week and informed the husband of the Canadian proceedings, asserting that the Toronto custody order required immediate relocation of the children to Canada. The husband, supported by Canadian counsel, responded by filing in Vietnam: divorce, interim joint custody, and a non-removal order preventing the wife from taking the children out of Vietnam. The Vietnamese court granted the husband's non-removal order within five days.
The result: parallel proceedings in Toronto and Hanoi, conflicting interim orders, two children with their lives suddenly in cross-jurisdictional limbo, and a high-conflict environment between the parents. The matter risked becoming a Hague Convention abduction case had either parent acted unilaterally on their respective court order.
We immediately coordinated with the husband's Canadian family-law counsel to manage the parallel proceedings. The first decision: which jurisdiction was the appropriate forum for the substantive issues? The factual case for Vietnam was strong:
- Children's habitual residence: Vietnam (last four years);
- Children's schooling, friendships, medical care, and language: Vietnamese and English in Vietnam;
- Joint marital home: Vietnam;
- Both parents resident in Vietnam at the time the marriage broke down;
- Substantial Vietnamese assets including the consultancy business.
We filed comprehensive evidence of these factors with the Vietnamese court and made parallel submissions in Toronto (through Canadian counsel) urging the Canadian court to defer to Vietnamese jurisdiction on the principle of forum non conveniens.
In parallel, we worked with Canadian counsel and a court-appointed child welfare assessor in Hanoi to develop a comprehensive parenting plan. Recognising that the wife had genuine Canadian connections and that the children had Canadian citizenship, the plan provided for the children to remain primarily in Hanoi during school terms, generous summer and winter holiday periods in Canada with the mother, and structured travel protocols requiring written consent from both parents and notice to both courts.
The property settlement followed a similar structure: Vietnamese assets divided in Vietnam under Vietnamese law, Canadian assets divided in Canada under Canadian law, with a side-agreement reconciling the totals to ensure overall equitable division.
The Vietnamese court issued a final order incorporating the negotiated parenting plan and Vietnamese-asset division, six months after our initial filing. The Toronto court accepted Vietnamese jurisdiction over the substantive parenting issues and adjusted its proceedings to address only the Canadian-asset and Canadian-immigration questions, which were resolved through corresponding orders.
The arrangement has now operated for nearly a year. The children continue to attend school in Hanoi; they spent eight weeks in Toronto over the summer holiday with their mother; both parents speak with the children daily through video calls. There has been no further court intervention. The mother subsequently relocated to Toronto on her existing professional commitments, and the children's primary residence with the father in Hanoi has been stable.
Coordinated cross-border family proceedings can stabilise even highly conflicted situations within weeks rather than years. Parallel filings — in both jurisdictions — are sometimes necessary to protect the children before the appropriate forum is determined. Working with capable foreign family-law counsel from day one is essential; the matter cannot be managed in Vietnam alone. The 'best interests of the child' framework, applied carefully to specific facts (school continuity, language, friendships, medical care), almost always produces a defensible result that both parents can accept once heat has dissipated.
Get in touch for a confidential consultation. We respond within 24 hours.
Office Hours: Mon-Fri, 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM (GMT+7, Indochina Time)