[2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

the uncertainty of the immigration position for M presents a huge practical hurdle in this matter;

as M notes in her second statement, the advice within Ms. Souvlakis’ reports fills her with dread. There is no certainty at all to her immigration position or status of her visa. If she remains on the current visa which is based upon a lie, she will constantly be living in fear that this could be cancelled and she would have to then engage in an appeal process which is expensive, has no certain timeframes and the entire process is completely discretionary. The prospect of her visa being cancelled and her having to be separated from A, plainly creates an intolerable situation for A who knows nothing other than M as his primary carer;

F fails to acknowledge the impact all of this uncertainty would have upon M’s mental health. He does not refer to Dr. Kolkiewicz’s report in this regard;

M is unwilling to lie to the authorities and constantly be looking over her shoulder. This is precisely the scenario which could lead to serious deterioration in her mental health;

if M’s visa is cancelled she cannot depart or re-enter Australia throughout the period of any appeal unless granted a bridging visa (which may not grant her any work rights) and is discretionary. She would feel “imprisoned” as described in her statement, on the other side of the world and away from her family and support network who remain in England;

M does not wish to have any legal association with F or to be reliant on him for her immigration status. She asserts that he has behaved in a controlling and coercive manner. M does not wish to be legally or financially reliant on him;

M notes that F’s immediate response to this issue following the adjourned hearing on 1^st July 2025 was to ask M to return to Australia, lie to the Australian authorities that the parties were still in a relationship, register herself at his address despite being separated and also suggested to M that she should not inform anyone in Australia they have separated. This is not something M should be expected to or would be willing to do and demonstrates an unfortunate lack of insight from F as to the reality of the position. Notably, F does not refer to any of this in his latest statement, however given that his position is that M should simply remain on this visa and can return to live in his parents’ flat, it is plain that he would expect M to lie about their relationship; and

M fears A is highly likely to be on a watch list in Australia, he was reported to the Australian Central Authority and is therefore known as an abducted child. M has extreme fear about being questioned at the airport. It is causing her extreme distress and anxiety which is entirely understandable in the circumstances. The thought of this is giving M nightmares as set out in her statement. F relies upon a fact sheet and states there were no orders in place and therefore M has not committed any criminal offence. He states that A is not on any watchlist and therefore he does not believe she would be questioned at the airport. There is however no absolute certainty to this.