[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

In my judgment, from that agreed starting point just set out above, I should approach my assessment in part via the prism of this child as a child of international parents, who travelled with the child extensively between England and Japan and to other countries. It is no exaggeration to say that this child experienced more international travel, and has gained more ‘air miles’, in her first 3 years of life than many people experience in a lifetime!

There are significant grounds in support of the child’s habitual residence changing to England, if not immediately following the move in November 2022, then within a relatively short time thereafter. The parents had originally planned to settle in England as their main base, as reflected in the post mutual agreement. This was a major move for the mother. They had a settled home with the child in England, which they planned extending. Members of the father’s extended family had an opportunity to develop their relationship with the child and further encourage her exposure to English language and culture. Whilst the extended family did not live in the same area, they were within relatively short travelling distance of the family home. In particular, the child spent every Christmas and had other special occasions with father, as reflected in the delightful photographs before the court. Over time she would have become more aware of her home environment and local community, forming relationships with others outside her wider family and engaging in local community activities [97-/510; 175-/510]. Once again this is reflected in pictorial evidence before me [171-/510]. Her comprehension of English no doubt further flourished over time. She was enrolled (and attended for periods) in a local nursey from April 2023, where she no doubt made embryonic connections with her peers in the locality, with birthday parties and the like [161-/510]. She was also registered for core services, most importantly a GP practice from 14/11/22 (but seemingly not a dentist until much later). She also had some limited treatment and vaccinations [109/510]. In addition, there is some contemporaneous evidence of what can be interpreted as to father’s understanding of her having her home in England [150-/510] which was not challenged at the time with, on father’s case, some thought for her primary education in the area in the future [174/510].

In view of my earlier findings, I have not been assisted by father’s evidence [67/501] of the child’s purported integration after the date I have found for the pre-emptive retention set out above. Indeed, in my judgment, there is an element of overemphasis on his part of the period beyond May/June 2025 in his evidence [66-68/510] (e.g. “Since April 2025 [the child] has not been away from me for more than a few days and has developed a deep sense of security with me as her care giver”) as he probably knows that there is a degree of vulnerability on his case in terms of the full extent of his role in her life before that time.

On the other hand, there are arguments in favour of the child’s habitual residence at birth in Japan not changing. She had a home with her mother and grandmother consistently from birth until the mother’s property was purchased in 2025. She was, and remained, registered for a government funded nursery from July 2023. She had regular involvement with health professionals, including a dentist. She had similar engagement with her family and family friends in the local community in Japan, with equally delightful pictorial evidence [212-/510].

Before turning to make my determination, I pause to emphasise that I approach this exercise on the basis that the child’s British and Japanese cultural and linguistic inheritances are equally valid and important to her and that they will remain equally important to her in the future.

In addition, nothing in this judgment is designed to imply that either set of extended family members are inherently more important or loving towards the child than the other. She is clearly a much-loved child by all. They all form a part of the child’s practical and cultural support network, and will continue to do so in the future.

Following anxious reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there has been no change in term of the child’s habitual residence from birth. When sifting the above-mentioned competing factors, I am firstly drawn to the fact that within a few months of leaving Japan for the first time, she returned to the home that was provided by her maternal grandmother, with great grandparents nearby. She was present time and time again there, immersed in the Japanese language and culture.

Further to my opening remarks at the outset of this section of my judgment, I have taken into account the relationship with members of the extended paternal family with the child. However, it is unlikely that they shared the same intensity of a shared home life such as that which the child enjoyed with her maternal grandmother over her early years.

Turning to the division of the child’s time, as emphasised earlier, and in accordance with the jurisprudence, it is not just about the quantity of time a child spend in the country, it is the quality and degree of integration. In my judgment the child was present in Japan, in the care of, on balance, her mother as primary care giver for most of her early life, during a significant and formative period in her early childhood development.

Whilst I guard against over reliance on this factor, I do return again to the evidence of the child’s health and general development. As set out earlier, this was literally charted regularly over most of her life to Spring 2025 by child health professionals in Japan, which is to be distinguished from the rather more sporadic engagement by her with health professionals in England.

The child also returned time and again to the same nursery in Japan, which I am satisfied was more of a consistent feature in her life and from her early life perspective than the nursery in England.

In my judgment I can safely infer from a careful analysis of either the uncontroversial, or stripped back, facts in this case that the child, on balance, enjoyed greater and more consistent cadence or rhythm in terms of her Japanese life in her formative early years up to Spring 2025.

If I am wrong at this point in my analysis of habitual residence, then I am, alternatively, satisfied that the child regained any loss of habitual residence from Japan to England shortly after she returned there with the mother early in 2024. They returned in the context of the mother taking up, by agreement with the father, a permanent position in Japan. The father accepts that the mother was habitually resident in Japan from about this time onwards and was, I find, the child’s primary care giver at that time.

Furthermore, and directly from the child’s lived experience and perspective, she returned once again (in the context of this alternative finding) to the home that she had previously shared with her maternal grandmother, with other family members nearby, with the resumption of all the linguistic and cultural implications of the same. As indicated earlier the likely intensity of her re-immersion in the life of her wider maternal family on a daily basis is likely to have been very significant to her.

It is also significant, in the context of this alternative limb of the judgment, that she returned to the nursery that was already very familiar to her, to well known people and local community. It is also a significant factor that the parents were later planning around her to purchase a property together in Japan and that the mother, as primary carer giver, did indeed purchase a property in Japan early in 2025 that was destined to be the child’s settled home.

Finally, having been in Japan on many intervening occasions, and for prolonged periods, the regaining of her former habitual residence in early 2024 would, in such circumstances, have been relatively swift.