[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

It follows that I have found that the father did indeed engage in a pre-emptive retention of the child on or about 18/6/25 and that this amounted to a wrongful retention as the child was habitually resident in Japan at that time. I have then determined that the father has failed to make out a defence in accordance with Article 13(b) of the Convention. I have found that the child should return to Japan. However, I have gone on to broadly accept the undertakings proposed by the mother.

I would therefore be grateful if the parties’ representatives would now draw up a draft order that reflects the terms of this judgment. In particular, the timely translation of key recent documents into Japanese should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I finally record in closing my gratitude for the invaluable assistance provided to the court by the parties’ counsel with their submissions which were, as anticipated, of the highest standard.