[2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

I make it a condition of my order that (i) F is to make payment of the bond/deposit and initial month’s rent (upto a combined figure of A$10,000) prior to M’s return to Australia so that a suitable property is available for immediate occupation by her; (ii) F is to make payment to M of a further A$25,000 so that she has funds available to meet the balance of six months’ rent (i.e. A$5,000 pm and therefore a total of $35,000 inclusive of the bond); (iii) these sums are to be paid in addition to (i.e. not deducted from) the A$75,000 which is to be paid to cover M’s other living costs inclusive of child maintenance for the next 12 months (I am satisfied that F has the means to fund M’s rent in addition to rather than as part of his offer of a payment for living costs as he has evidenced that he holds funds in one bank account of A$279,811.80 and he is employed in what he describes in his second statement as a “well paying job”). He had also offered to fund the bills (and I assume also rent if charged by his parents) in addition to the A$75,000 had M returned to the Z Street apartment). The total of A$132,000 (i.e. A$35,000 and A$75,000 and nursery fees of upto A$22,000) compares to the A$136,000 which M sought to cover living expenses (including rent) and nursery fees for the next 12 months and the A$97,000 (i.e. A$75,000 and A$22,000) offered; (iv) the living expenses and rental monies are not to be held in any form of escrow account which I consider to be unnecessarily controlling; (v) F will pay the lump sum payment of A$75,000 to M so that these are cleared funds in M’s bank account by the date of her return to Australia; (vi) F will pay upto A$22,000 towards the costs of an immigration lawyer/visa-related costs rather than the A$15,000 offered (i.e. the upper end of the range referenced within the immigration report rather than the lower end of the range – and it should be noted that M sought only the lower sum); (vii) F will make payment of such proportion of the A$22,000 as M may evidence as being required in advance of any return if M wishes to take any steps in respect of visa issues (including applying for a visa in her own right) prior to her return; and (viii) F will fund an independent private health/medical policy for M.

I consider that it is appropriate for the rental monies and the living costs to be paid upfront to M given that I wish to minimise her (perceived) dependence on F so far as I can in the hope that this is beneficial for her mental health. Payment of a minimum of six months upfront (i.e. $35,000 including the bond) was also what was sought by Ms. Kumar on M’s behalf as a secondary case if I was to order a return (her primary case was for a payment of 12 months upfront). I also hope that payment of the higher rather than the lower sum for immigration-related issues will provide M with some further assurance.

I shall not make any orders in respect of a second or third year in Australia as I do not consider it appropriate for this court to do so.

As I also stated during the hearing I do not consider that it is appropriate for this court to deal with interim contact arrangements and therefore do not adjudicate between the parties’ respective positions. If F does not consider that the proposals put forward by M (or on her behalf) to be consistent with A’s welfare then this will need to be the subject of an application by him to the Australian courts.

I will accept these undertakings as offered with the above amendments (and also as amended by the order as to non-separation that I make below).