[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

The mother refers to father’s litigation stance on habitual residence at the time of his CA89 application. His application [455/510] asserts: “The father is not sure whether the mother is likely to challenge jurisdiction. The child has spent considerable time in both England with the father alone as well as in Japan. The father believes England has jurisidiction due to the recent developments and child being due to live with the father until September 2025. The father reserves his right to fully advance his position.”.

Those acting for the mother submit that there is no unqualified assertion within the form that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales at that time. The father’s response is that he was merely setting out his case.

I am not satisfied that this is a materially significant feature of the evidence. It is implied in the form that the father’s case was that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales but anticipated that there may, as turned out to be so, counter arguments in that regard.