[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

In an otherwise barren landscape under this heading, there is one area of agreement between the parties. It is agreed that the child was habitually resident in Japan during her first few weeks of life, at least until she moved with the mother to England on 1/11/22. It is the mother’s primary case that the child remained habitually resident in Japan from that time onwards until the pre-emptive breach by the father as so found above.

By contrast, the father contends that there was a change of habitual residence shortly after the “move” (on his case) to England on 1/11/22, with the result that the habitual residence did not change again thereafter back to Japan.

I pause to note that each parent steadfastly and emphatically says (again my underlining emphasis) that the child “lived” with that parent in that country and only “visited” the other.

I have considered with care the highly persuasive submissions of both leading counsel on this issue. I will endeavour to set out my summary of their respective arguments as part of my holistic assessment and determination.