Background
4.In order to give context to the legal arguments, I propose to say something briefly about the background to this litigation. For these purposes I propose to refer to the parents as “the father” and “the mother”.5.The father is 42 years old. He was born in Spain but has since acquired dual British nationality having worked for some time in the international hospitality sector. The mother is 33. She was born in Serbia where members of her family still live. She, like the father, has pursued a successful career which has seen her working in several different jurisdictions. She is now a national of Great Britain and Hungary as well as retaining her nationality of birth. She works as a self-employed marketing consultant and, like the father, has had some notable success in her career. She recently secured a Masters degree. H is clearly a much-loved child and he is fortunate indeed to have two devoted, intelligent and professionally successful parents. On behalf of his client, Mr Wareing described both as “responsible, caring parents”.6.The father came to live and work in London in 2002. Six years later, the mother moved to this country. They met in 2014 when they were working at the same restaurant and a relationship developed between them. By the Spring of 2015 they were cohabiting. In 2017, the mother became pregnant. It appears that by that stage their relationship was committed, happy and stable. H was born in 2018. He has British nationality. Whilst he was still a small infant, his parents began to discuss the prospect of leaving England to make a home together in Europe. In the early part of 2019, the father had been approached with a view to securing employment in Ibiza where he was negotiating with potential employers in relation to a job running a theatre and restaurant on the island. That opportunity went no further and, in 2020, he was in discussion with a group of investors about a potential move to Madrid. These negotiations were fairly advanced but the project was delayed as a result of the pandemic. In the meantime it seems that the discussions between these parties about a move to Spain continued. The father saw greater employment opportunities in that jurisdiction and both appeared to have been attracted by the lifestyle options available to the family if living at a location close to the coast. The mother does not dispute that these preliminary discussions took place but her case is that there was never a plan for permanent relocation to Spain. She accepts that their plans to relocate were motivated by the father’s need to find alternative employment when he was made redundant from his role as the general manager of a well-known restaurant in central London. 7.As the evidence before the court confirms, there came a point when there was a consensus between them to leave London and make the move to Spain. It was a natural point of gravitation for the family since the father had family members in that city (his mother and two sisters) who would be available to offer support following the family’s arrival. Arrangements were made to let the London apartment which had been the family’s home up to that point. The tenancy agreement initially ran for 12 months from 1 April 2020 and was subsequently renewed for a further 12 months. In the early part of 2020, their plans to leave London for Spain had to be put on hold as a result of the global pandemic. Travel arrangements for April 2021 were postponed and the move eventually took place at the beginning of May 2021.8.At the time of the move, they shipped some of their belongings, including some office furniture, to Spain, other pieces of furniture and winter clothes being placed into store in London and Spain as surplus to their immediate needs and requirements. There appear by now to have been financial constraints on the couple. The father sold a small 2 bedroomed apartment which he owned in Spain in order to give them some working capital as they made the move. The mother had secured some consultancy work in London which she was able to undertake remotely from Spain.9.Having spent several weeks staying with the father’s sister in Spain on a temporary basis, they moved into their own accommodation at the beginning of September 2021. The house which they rented after some weeks searching for the right property was a fairly substantial home with four bedrooms, three bathrooms and all the usual amenities of a family home. Following the move into that property, the father has not returned to England. The mother has returned with H on three occasions where she was able to spend time with her family who live close to central London. It is a close-knit extended family and I have no doubt that both she and H took much pleasure from those trips. 10.It seems that difficulties in the parents’ relationship began to surface towards the end of 2021 but they remained together as a couple for several more months. By March this year (2022), they had reached a decision to separate. The mother travelled to England over Easter that year. Having returned to Spain, she informed the father that she wished to make a further trip to England for her sister’s graduation event. When the father objected to H leaving Spain, the mother indicated that she would travel by herself. On 14 May 2022, the mother contacted the father by telephone to inform him that she and H had travelled together to England but that they would be returning to Spain by the end of the month. Three days later, on 17 May 2022, she called to say that, having sought legal advice locally in England, she had decided not to return and would be remaining in England permanently with their son.11.By that stage there were parallel proceedings ongoing in the domestic courts of both jurisdictions. The mother had by then issued proceedings in a London Family Court for a child arrangements and prohibited steps order. Those proceedings were stayed by order of Mr Justice Peel on 16 June 2022. For his part, the father had issued his own application in the Court of First Instance in a city in Spain. There have been two hearings in those proceedings. On 6 May 2022 the Spanish court accepted jurisdiction and he was given permission to proceed with an application “seeking measures to avoid an abduction” of their son. At a subsequent hearing on 31 May 2022, the father’s application was extended to include a request for guardianship and custody of the child. The mother was directed to respond to his application within 20 working days. She tells me through her counsel that she has not been formally served with those proceedings. I am proceeding on that basis for the purposes of this hearing. She accepts that she is aware of the proceedings having now had an opportunity to see the orders flowing from each of the two hearings in the local Spanish family court.12.That is where matters stood when this matter came before me yesterday for the final hearing of the application brought by the father pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention.