FD25P00067 - [2025] EWHC 2572 (Fam)

Fecha: 09-Oct-2025

Conclusions

Conclusion

26.

In reaching my conclusions, I have considered all the evidence and submissions in the round. I am guided by O’s welfare as the lodestar in this case. I acknowledge that both parents feel strongly, both want to do the best for O, but both have different views about what is in his interests.

27.

I accept that the manner in which M removed O must have been turbulent and confusing for O. It was also alarming and upsetting for F who did not even know in which country O was for four months. The circumstances of O’s departure have undoubtedly made the prospect of the parents working together in the future for the benefit of O that much harder. F also makes the valid point that O was living in Thailand at the time of his departure and had been there since birth, a period of about 1 ½ years. There are obvious connections with Thailand. I accept that F poses no direct threat to O, and wants above all to re-establish a relationship with him. Finally, I accept that I am entitled to assume that Thailand’s legal, security and administrative agencies have appropriate legal and other provisions to ensure that O’s welfare is the central consideration in any dispute, that M will be able to pursue her case in Thailand, that any English order is likely to carry considerable weight, and that all matters, including alleged domestic abuse, will be properly considered by the Thai court. If there is any lingering concern about whether the Thai court would make an order which aligns with the English order, it would be open to me to make a return order conditional on an appropriate Thai order being in place.

28.

However, on balance, and having carefully considered all the competing arguments, in my judgment the application must fail and I decline to make a return order. I have come to this conclusion for the following principal reasons:

Although O was removed from Thailand clandestinely in October 2023, and F was not aware of his whereabouts until February 2024, it was not until January 2025 that F instituted legal proceedings in England, and then only for a child arrangements order, not a return order. It does not seem that he sought a return to Thailand in that period, and M had no reason to think that is what he wanted. It was not until February 2025 that F applied for a return order, a year after he discovered that O was in England. By then, O was well settled in England. Plainly, the longer O (or any child) is in the incoming country (in this case England), the more disruptive the return to the outgoing country (in this case Thailand) is likely to be. F could have applied sooner for a return order, but did not do so.

ii)

I am confident that a return to Thailand would be highly disruptive for O. He is well integrated in England, cared for by M and surrounded by his extended maternal family. He has been in England for the majority of his life (2 years, as against 1 ½ years in Thailand, and those two years are the most recent ones). At least for the past two years, his primary carer has been M, and he has had minimal contact with F. He has no extended family in Thailand. He and M would have to adjust to new accommodation and living arrangements and a new way of life, in Thailand.

iii)

In my judgment, M would face a difficult situation upon return to Thailand and O, whose welfare is inextricably linked with M, would likely to be affected. F’s protective measures include providing accommodation, but only for three months, and he says that any maintenance should be agreed in Thailand or decided by the courts. M would be faced by F potentially seeking to remove O from her care through the court process in Thailand. There is no public funding available, although she may be able to access a pro bono system. She would not be surrounded by her family, who are her support network. Although it appears she would be able to secure a visa for one year, it is far from clear that she would be able to remain in Thailand thereafter. Proceedings in Thailand could take, according to the SJE, up to 18 months, such that M could face being an overstayer during any litigation there. If she had to leave Thailand after a year, and particularly if that were to happen during proceedings, that would have an effect on her ability to care for (or even see) O, and would add considerably to her anxiety.

iv)

If (as seems likely to me) any appropriate reciprocal order in Thailand designed to ensure a safe return for M and O takes weeks or months, there would be delay, uncertainty and an inevitable degree of anxiety on M’s part.

Referencing paragraph 75 of the SJE’s report on Thai law (cited above), it is not entirely clear whether and to what extent the fact that M removed O from Thailand clandestinely would have an impact on proceedings there. There is no evidence of a criminal complaint, but there is, or may be, a risk that M’s parental rights are removed by reason of the abduction. This can be invoked by the court of its own motion or by an interested party including the Public Prosecutor. In short, as I understand it, O could be removed from M as a direct result of the abduction, regardless of any undertakings given by F not to seek to separate M and O until the Thai court is fully seised. The risk of separation of M and O in such a way would be, in my judgment, injurious to O.

vi)

M says, and I have no reason to doubt, that she was anxious and isolated in Thailand. Her mental health has improved in England but she still experiences flashbacks. She has been receiving some professional assistance. For her now to return to Thailand, where she has (taking her case at its highest) been the subject of an abusive relationship, is likely to impact negatively upon her emotional and mental wellbeing. True, she would not be returning to the matrimonial home, or to an ongoing relationship with F, but she would be returning to a country where abuse has taken place, where she has unhappy memories, where she faces an uncertain future, and in circumstances where a settled life in England would be left behind contrary to her own wishes.

vii)

I am confident that overall it would be easier for F to navigate the English legal system (as he has shown himself well able to do) than for M to navigate the Thai legal system. It would be more practicable, convenient and fair for welfare proceedings to take place in England.

viii)

Overall, in my judgment, to require O, whose welfare is inextricably linked with M, to be returned to Thailand would be contrary to his interests, unsettling, uncertain, disruptive, and potentially damaging to his wellbeing.

29.

In reaching this conclusion, I am not considering the application in terms of the 1980 Hague Convention where M would need to establish an Article 13(b) defence. There is no threshold to be met. I am looking at all matters in terms of O’s welfare, and the impact on him (directly, and indirectly through M) of a return to Thailand as against remaining in England. In my judgment, the scales tip clearly and firmly in favour of remaining in England. The application for a return order is dismissed.

The future

30.

That is not the end of matters. F is entitled to bring an application for a child arrangements order in the local family court in England. The Cafcass Officer referred to the benefits of O having a relationship with both parents, and growing up knowing both sides of his background. I sincerely hope that the parents will be able to reach a sensible long term welfare arrangement for O with as little court intervention as possible.

31.

During submissions I invited M, through counsel, to indicate her approach to contact in the event of the application for a return order to Thailand being refused. It seems to me that the parties are now separated by thousands of miles, their relationship is over and the time has come to look to O’s future. I have commented in other cases that in my experience the real issue is often not a return to the country from which the child has been removed, but the fervent wish of the left behind parent to continue a relationship with their child, and the anxiety that the relationship might be brought to an end. That, I suspect, is what motivates F here; it was the loss of that relationship, and the frustration at what he perceived to be M’s obstructive attitude towards contact, which prompted his application for a return order. It is now more difficult to restore the parent/child relationship as F has not seen O for two years, but it can be done. It requires each to respect the other, and to work together for the benefit of O. Hopefully, the outcome of these proceedings will give them each some clarity and allow them to look more to the future and dwell less on the past. The impression I have of both parties is that they are willing to do so.

32.

M through counsel indicated that looking forward she suggests the following in principle:

If he can, F to travel to England up to 4 times a year to see O.

ii)

Initially, contact to be supervised, perhaps for a few consecutive days during each trip.

iii)

Provided it goes reasonably well, it can then progress to unsupervised contact.

iv)

Weekly video contact to take place.

The parents to start using the Our Family Wizard Parenting App.

vi)

Indirect contact by way of birthday and Christmas cards and presents.

vii)

M to provide F once per month with an update on O, including nursery and school reports.

viii)

The parties should attend mediation.

33.

This is a framework which should be incorporated as a recital to the order.