[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

As indicated above, the father issued his CA89 application on 24/6/25 [437-/510] along with a Form C1A [468-/510]. Those acting for the father set out their instructions as to the recent history of the parties’ relationship and his alleged concerns [448/510] expressing further concern that the mother would remove the child to Japan and that he would not see her again. The application referred, in particular, to the events on 18/6/25 and 19/6/25, the mother’s arrest and her bail situation. There was also reference to the ‘invite’ to her to attend mediation. He sought diverse orders [451/510] including an interim ‘Lives With’ order. He sought an urgent on notice hearing within 24 hours. The application was to be sent to the mother at 7am the next day.

I also digress to note the father’s reference to the England family home (my emphasis) as “…the respondent is currently staying at the applicant’s property (which the applicant and child have temporarily moved out of) [459/510].

The CA89 application was duly sent to the mother at 7.02 am on 25/6/25. The application was listed later that day before DJ [redacted] [503-/510] at the FC. A prohibited steps order was made to prevent the mother removing the child from father’s care and from the jurisdiction. This was expressed to be “until further order”. The father sought, but was not granted, an interim ‘Lives With’ order at the hearing [506/510]. A separate order provided for a FHDRA on 10/9/25 [508/510].

Once again as indicated earlier, the mother’s Form C66 application was issued on 30/6/25. The mother’s application was listed before Judd J on 22/7/25 [27-/510]. The first point of note is that the father applied at that hearing for the summary dismissal of this application. That application by the father was itself summarily dismissed [27/510]. The basis of that application by father was explored at this hearing. Those acting for mother contend that this was thinly disguised tactical manoeuvring / ‘gameplaying’. It is understood that those acting for father at the time contended that the time for the child to return to Japan had not passed. Those acting for the mother also contend that he declined to confirm when asked whether he would return the child in September 2025. The father also referred, and did so once again at this hearing, to his dismissal application being deployed at that time to save on further costs as he is paying privately. His costs by that hearing alone (involving other leading counsel) exceeded £40k.

Whilst I do not feel able to make a definitive finding as to the issues raised before me as to father’s motivation at that time, I do note that, on any view, the time for the child to have returned to Japan in September 2025 has now certainly passed and that she still remains in the jurisdiction of England and Wales .

In addition to the ‘usual’ case management directions that this court would expect to see at such a hearing, the court also ordered, inter alia, the following: (a) a port alert; (b) third party disclosure from the police and social services and (c) a report from an expert in Japanese family law. The court also set aside part of the FC’s CA89 order, making alternative orders to ensure that the child was not removed from the jurisdiction and accepted undertakings from the mother about travel documents [35/510]. The court also ordered further unsupervised direct contact for the mother. This final hearing was also listed at that time.

The proceedings at the FC were later stayed by the same district judge on 3/7/25 as a result [510/510] of this application by mother and Judd J’s order.