[2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam)

Fecha: 26-Ago-2025

Therefore even taking the various strands of M’s Article 13(b) defence cumulatively, bearing in mind that the Article has a high threshold, demonstrated by the use of the words “grave” and “intolerabl

98)

Therefore even taking the various strands of M’s Article 13(b) defence cumulatively, bearing in mind that the Article has a high threshold, demonstrated by the use of the words “grave” and “intolerable”, I am satisfied that there is not such a risk in this case.

99)

If, however, I am wrong in this conclusion and M’s allegations, at their highest and considered cumulatively, would constitute a grave risk of harm to A or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation, I would be satisfied that (subject to what I say below) the protective measures that are offered are sufficient to mitigate the harm.

100)

At paragraph 23 of the statement of Ms. Broadley (F’s solicitor) various protective measures were offered. In her second statement M set out the protective measures which she sought to which F responded in his second statement in which he set out the revised protective measures (including so-called ‘soft landing’ provisions) that he is willing to offer as undertakings:

F will fund M and A’s return flights to Australia. The paternal grandfather has offered to travel to England to help M with the return leg;

F will pay A$15,000 in a dedicated account for M to deal with fees for any visa issues and/or applying for a visa in her own right;

A and M can have exclusive use of the Z Street apartment for up to six months upon their return. The family resided in this property prior to A’s removal. M would not need to pay any rent or utility bills during this time (with Ms. Best’s position statement confirming that F would fund the same);

F will pay a lump sum payment of A$75,000 to M upon her return to Australia. This would be a global figure (inclusive of child maintenance) for M to resettle in Melbourne and help with living costs in the first year. This figure would remain the same irrespective of whether M wanted to stay in the Z Street apartment or not;

F will fund A’s kindergarten fees up to A$22,000 a year. The kindergarten previously planned by the parties in Melbourne have confirmed they would have a space for A to attend three days per week;

F will fund a further A$75,000 for the second year M is in Australia and A$100,000 for the third year (when the family would be eligible to apply for permanent residency). After this, F would continue to fund child maintenance;

the paternal grandparents are able and willing to assist with childcare if desired;

F will undertake the following (on the basis of no admissions or findings):

not to remove A from M’s care save for any agreed or court ordered contact upon their return to Australia;

ii)

not to prevent A travelling outside of Australia with M temporarily for the purpose of renewing, extending or resolving any visa issues;

iii)

not to attend the Z Street property unless agreed with M or ordered by the court;

iv)

not to contact M save through a parenting app for the purpose of child arrangements and matters of parental responsibility;

not to harass or pester M or verbally abuse M;

vi)

not to attend M’s address or place of work;

vii)

not to cause damage to any of M’s property;

viii)

not to pursue any civil or criminal proceedings against M in Australia associated with A’s wrongful removal; and

ix)

not to consume drugs or alcohol before or during any contact with A.

in the unlikely event M and A are refused entry upon arriving in Australia, A should return to England with M.

101)

I do not consider it is appropriate for M to have to return to the Z Street apartment. I made this clear during the hearing when hearing submissions as to the appropriate protective measures should I order a return. F therefore modified his position to offer payment of a bond for upto six weeks rent on a rental property and pay the first month’s rent upfront upto a combined figure of A$10,000 which would be deducted from the A$75,000 offered. I believe this figure is offered as a consequence of the three properties in Melbourne that M exhibited to her second statement which evidence a cost of A$5,200 pm rent/A$5,200 bond, A$7,150 pm rent/A$9,900 bond, and A$7,150 pm rent/A$1,950 pm respectively.