[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

In the light of the very detailed submissions before me, it is necessary for me to devote some considerable attention to this section of the judgment, which will later assist, in part, in informing my determination. The result is that the judgment is, consequentially, longer than ideally would have been required.

The mother was born in Japan on [date]. She had something of an international upbringing, with periods of time spent by her in both USA and Australia. She is currently, by profession, [profession / employment redacted] in Japan .

The father was born on [date] and was raised in England. The father is, by profession, [profession / employment redacted].

The parties met in [date]. They became engaged in [date]. They then married on [date]. The letter from mother’s mother (the “maternal grandmother”) [69/510; 194-/510] with some concerns about her at the time seemingly did not overly trouble the father. The mother travelled to [England] in [date] [39/510] on a partner’s visa [209/510] to marry. According to the father, she moved a number of her possessions to England shortly thereafter [62/510]. They purchased, in father’s sole name, the English family home, a flat, in September 2021 [60/510].

Following their marriage, the parents entered into a post nuptial agreement on 26/2/21 [125/510] having each received separate legal advice. Whilst the main focus of the written agreement related to the parents’ financial circumstances and commitments to one another, there was also reference to any future child/ren. I refer in greater detail to the agreement later in this judgment.

The mother conceived her pregnancy in [date] 2021. The pregnancy was planned. She was living in England with the father at that time. However, one of the three audio recordings sent to me related to an argument between the parents when she was pregnant in January 2022. I return to this incident as well later in the judgment.

The mother travelled back to Japan in March 2022 [39/510]. The child was born in Japan on [date]. The father had travelled to Japan on 26/6/22 [210/510] and was present with mother at the time of her birth. The child was registered as a resident of [a city in Japan] in July 2022 [231/510]. The parents stayed together with the maternal grandmother at the time. The mother’s grandparents also lived nearby in part of the same complex.

I will deal with the detail of the general monitoring of the child’s health and development later in this judgment. At this point I merely note that the child underwent the usual post natal checks in Japan, where she was also registered for various medical services [280/510].

The father returned to England on 21/8/22 [210/510] but returned in October 2022. He became registered as a resident in Japan in November 2022 [62/510]. On father’s case, this was resorted to as a precaution in case of any renewed Covid 19 travel restrictions, rather than an indication of his future plans on his part.

On 1/11/22 the mother travelled with the child from Japan to England [210/510]. At this point I digress to copy into this judgment a schedule provided by the mother [253/510] of the child’s movements between England, Japan and other countries, which also sets out the core care giver arrangements during these periods. The father produced a similar schedule. It was confirmed in the course of the hearing, as expected in view of the fairly basic factual nature of the contents (which is plainly capable of verification by reference to travel documents) that there were no material differences between the two schedules, save that the father’s schedule extends beyond 30/6/25. I adopt the mother’s schedule for convenience only:

I will deal separately later with my analysis of the spread of the child’s time over this period. That said, I am now going to reflect on some significant events and other aspects relating to her life and respective connections to England and Japan from this chronology.

In relation to the provision for the child’s health needs in England, I note that she was registered with the father’s General Practitioner (“GP”) medical practice on 14/11/22 shortly after her first arrival in England.

There is also evidence before the court that the mother was closely connected with the family home in England in 2022/23, see Council Tax documentation from March 2022 (for year 22/23) [118/510] and March 2023 (for year 23/24) [119/510] respectively.

The child was also enrolled in a nursery some 10 minutes from the England home in April 2023 [60/510; 102/510]. She was then enrolled in a local government funded nursery in Japan in July 2023 [39/510; 210/510; 270-/510]. The mother later opened a bank account for the child in Japan on 11/10/23 [233/510].

In term of the parents’ relationship more generally, it would appear that their life as a couple was going well in 2023 into 2024. They seemingly renewed their commitment to one another in a wedding ceremony held in Japan. There are references to various dates in the documents before me, namely 2022 [409/510], November 2023 [39/510; 420/510] and December 2023 [209/510]. The likely correct date, on all the information before me, is probably late 2023.

In December 2023, the father says [61/510] that the mother was granted a further 2½ year extension to her spousal visa, adding “…. meaning we were halfway to her Indefinite Leave to Remain visa”. The mother also confirms the application at that time [210/510]. I digress to comment that there is no evidence before me of the father pursuing a similar application in Japan. The only application by him was seemingly to be a resident between 2022 and 2024.

In January 2024, the mother applied for her current position in Japan. In the additional bundle of e mails submitted to the court in the course of the hearing, it is clear that the father was supportive of the application [472/510]. On 19/2/24 the mother travelled with the child to Japan to attend her interview. She was offered her current role in February 2024 [211/510]. She took up the post in May 2024.

It would then appear that the parents were going to purchase a property in Japan in the course of 2024 after she took up her position. The court has been referred to some of their communication about this plan [212-/510; 254/510].

It appears to be common ground that there was then a serious deterioration in the parents’ relationship in late 2024 [198/510]. The father states that that, from December 2024, “the co-parenting” plan broke down and the mother began to ask him to visit the child in Japan [62/510]. That said, there was an agreement between the parties for the child to spend Christmas in 2024 in England. This is reflected within the above schedule. The mother and the child travelled to England and stayed at the home between 2/12/24 and 13/1/25.

There appears to have been a serious argument during this period on 3/1/25 between the parents [471/510]. During the argument, the father alleges that the mother made threats to burn his clothes and produced a lighter. The facts are in issue. The mother has described the context to the argument [218/510; 284/510]. Notwithstanding this incident, even on father’s case, the mother and the child were able to return to Japan on 13/1/25.

The mother then purchased a property in her sole name in February 2025. There are issues between the parties as to this aspect of their financial arrangements. The mother contends that the father could not be named on the Japanese equivalent of the Land Register in relation to this property as he could not borrow money on a mortgage as a foreign national. The father denies that this is an accurate explanation for this unilateral property purchase. However, I note that the father has been to the apartment [420/510]. In any event, the child moved to live at the new property for a few weeks before she travelled to England earlier this year. There are pictures of the child’s bedroom. I note that this property has not figured significantly in her life. She may not now have any recollection of it.

The father alleges [471/510] that in March 2025 the mother told him that she was unable to cope with solo parenting the child and that she “needed space from [the child]”. The mother denies this. He alleges that he was concerned about her safety. He contends that he told the mother he was happy to ‘solo parent’ her.

On 25/3/25 further arrangements were made for the child to travel to England. The original plan was for the child to remain in England from 28/4/25 to 9/7/25 [40/510; 208/510]. The father was due to return with her and to remain in Japan until 30/7/25 [51/510]. There is evidence before the court as to the airline ticket purchased [47/510; 296/510] for this trip. The child duly arrived with the father in England on 28/4/25. The mother remained in Japan. I digress to note how the father referred to the plan in his statement in support of his application to the [redacted] Family Court (“FC”) [484/510] which gave the impression of the trip always extending to 13/9/25. This was also his account to social services [409/510].

Furthermore, whilst I do not over interpret the precise terminology deployed, I do pause to note that the father puts it in this way in his statement [67/510]: “…[the child] has quickly and comfortably settled back into her UK life” (my emphasis).

It would then appear that on 18/5/25, on father’s case [66/510], or perhaps even earlier in 2025 [293/510; 409/510], he formed the view that the mother was having an affair. He had access to her ChatGPT account, which I confess was new to me. This was explained to me as effectively analogous to one person having remote access to another person’s internet search history. I was taken to screen shots [80-/510] where the mother appears to ask for advice about separating and was indicating an “affair partner”. I pause there again. There is an issue as to whether the father ‘hacked’ mother’s account or whether he had consensual access. I am not in a position to determine that issue, nor the underlying allegation of an affair. Nonetheless, it is clear that this information clearly upset the father. He says in terms “…this upset me greatly” [66/510] The mother alleges that the father became abusive towards her as a result and called her a “slut” and other offensive terms. On the father’s evidence he asserts “from that point there was no jointly agreed plan for [P]’s residence or future care…” [66/510].

On 1/6/25 the mother informed the father that she would be travelling to England on 16/6/25. On 2/6/25 she contends that she thought she would experience difficulties in arranging childcare for the child in Japan [52/510; 171/510; 218/510]. Therefore, she sought to extend the child’s stay in England until 13/9/25. The mother contends that she telephoned father to notify him of this further change on 5/6/25. He called her back. She contends he was hostile. He accused her of having an affair.

I note that the father has referred to the mother’s actions about changing the date of the child’s return as an “… absence of collaboration” [66/510]. Whilst it was indeed seemingly unilateral, his account is curious. In a sense this change was to his benefit. Indeed, as indicated earlier, later in his own statement he refers to an agreement between them that she would stay with him until 13/9/25 [68/510].

By 5/6/25 the mother had seemingly resolved her childcare issues. She contends that she had become aware of her own father’s terminal cancer diagnosis. It is agreed that she then sought to revert to an earlier July return date for the child. There was a ‘distance’ argument between them on that date as the mother was in Japan. I take the following from the father’s later CA89 application [448/510] (my emphasis): “Matters escalated on Thursday 5 June 2025 during a telephone argument. During this call, the respondent mother was confronted by the applicant father about an affair and she stated that she intended to kill herself. Further, she has sought to unilaterally change the immediate contact arrangements. The child has been in the applicant father's care since 28 April 2025, when he collected her from Japan. [The child] was due to be with the applicant father until 16 September 2025 and spend the holidays with the father and paternal family in England”. The father alleges that mother made other threats to self harm on this day [70/510].

I pause there to comment that this must have been a very difficult time for both parents. They were facing up to the end of a relationship to which they had both been very committed so recently before.

On 10/6/25 the father instructed his present solicitors. This decision by him was not disclosed to the mother at the time. He reported to social services that when mother arrived “…he was hoping that this would be an opportunity for them to engage with mediation and come up with a written agreement regarding 50-50 care”.

On 16/6/25 the mother duly arrived in England [219/510]. She stayed at the family home with the father and the child. All was seemingly well initially. The father later referred to “two good days “ initially to social services [409/510]. The mother asked the father whether the child could return to Japan sooner than rearranged for 13/9/25. The father refused mother’s request. The mother says that she was distressed by his objection. The father then left a message for the mother on 17/6/25 [219/510] forewarning her that she would receive a letter from his solicitors. That was a reference to a letter dated 17/6/25.

The solicitors letter dated 17/6/25 must, on all the evidence before me, have duly arrived with the mother on 18/6/25. The letter stated, inter alia, that the relationship had broken down and that the father sought “similar amount of time” with the child for the “benefit from two different cultural experiences by living in both England and Japan”. The father had also placed the child’s passports with them [298/510]. I digress to note that there was no mention of the initial proposed earlier return of the child in July to Japan [497/510]. Indeed, it asserted in the letter that “…[the child] should be remaining with him in [England] during the summer holidays as was always envisaged”.

The letter also proposed “shuttle mediation” [498/510]. The letter also adds “… Pending resolution of this matter I have asked [K] to bring [the child’s] passports to my office for safekeeping. This is a very standard step in children cases and please be assured that I will not be releasing them to [K] without your consent”. Whilst the assertion about the ‘standard’ nature of that step may indeed be correct, the reality is that the father would plainly have had no problem at all with the passports being retained by a third party as the child was in England. By comparison, the implications for the mother from her perception, no matter how this point was presented, would have been very different. This was reflected in her follow up communication [500/510] to his solicitor.

Whilst the mother did initially agree to mediation [499/510] she contends that this was based on father first regaining the child’s passports [219/510]. In the event this mediation did not take place. Instead, there was then an extremely concerning incident at the family home on 18/6/25. This was the second audio recording submitted to me on behalf of the father. The parents had an argument. The failed reference to mediation formed part of the context to this incident. The mother was holding a knife. She held the knife towards father and told him that he may as well kill her. He referred to her as a “psycho” [205/510] at one point. There were other alleged abusive comments and threats by mother later in the evening [71-/510]. Mother sets out her different version of the context [220/510]. The child became involved at one stage. I will deal with this incident in more detail later. I will make such findings or comments that are open to me on the documentation, and without forensic exploration of the issues, in relation to this incident later in this judgment.

A further troubling incident occurred the next day i.e. 19/6/25. The background to this incident, on the father’s case, is that earlier that day he became aware the mother searched on ChatGPT for evidence she would need to report domestic violence to the UK police [125-126; 200/510; 220/510]. I digress to note that it follows he was still seemingly accessing her account at that time. In the course of the argument the mother asked the father whether he had retrieved the child’s passport from the solicitors. There was a further argument which was audio recorded by the father on 18/6/25. This was the third audio recording sent to me. The mother says she fainted and hit her head during the wider incident. The father asserts that this fall was ‘staged’. The mother called the police [405-/510]. In fact, the mother was arrested when they arrived, seemingly after father played the second audio recording to them. She was later bailed on conditions relating to the father and the child [300-/510]. Once again, I will return to this incident in more detail later in my judgment.

There was an inevitable safeguarding referral by the police to the relevant Children Services section of the relevant council on 23/6/25 [407/510] as the child had been present. An arrangement was put in place for the mother’s contact with the child to be supervised pending a strategy meeting [409/510] and an assessment.

On 23/6/23 the father issued a divorce application [41/510] (not in the bundle). Then on 24/6/25 he applied for CA89 orders in relation to the child at the FC [437/510]. Shortly thereafter on 30/6/25 [3-/510] the mother submitted her application under the Convention. I will also deal with this litigation history separately later.

On 5/7/25 the mother was able to have supervised contact with the child. Further supervised contact took place on 8/7/25, 13/7/25 and 16/7/25 [425-/510]. The records resulting from that contact make for positive reading. On 21/7/25 there was a further very important development in terms of contact in that father agreed for some unsupervised contact between the mother and the child.

The directions hearing before Judd J took place on 22/7/25. Again I deal with the outcome of that hearing in the next section of the judgment. Further unsupervised contact was ordered, by agreement, by the court at this hearing.

On 31/7/25 the mother returned to Japan. She had exceeded the permitted period for her to work remotely from England by her employers. She started to see a psychologist on her return [221/510] albeit, on her case, due to the alleged abuse she has sustained from the father.

On 11/8/25 the relevant Children Services department completed its Child and Family Assessment [407-/510] and filed its report and accompanying records. It is common ground that, following their assessment, no further action was taken and the case is now closed. The police confirmed a no further action (or “NFA”) outcome on 5/9/25.

The mother returned again to England on 20/9/25. There has been some further direct contact arranged for her since her return. On 17/7/25 the parents attended mediation, which was sadly unsuccessful. She is currently due to return to Japan on 6/10/25.