[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

I have set out the ‘raw’ data of the child’s movements earlier. I immediately pause to reflect, having adopted the data from the schedule, that details as to the bare quantity of time that a child spends in ‘x’ country with ‘y/z’ parent is, in accordance with Re C, certainly not determinative as to the issue of habitual residence. The exercise confronting the court calls for a qualitative, rather than bare quantitative, assessment. However, it seems to me that the very international flavour of this child’s lived experience is relevant.

The data reveals that the child was in the mother’s sole care for 114 days in her first year of life. She was in the joint care of both parents for the remainder of that year, save for 4 days when she was in the father’s sole care. Whilst I do not wish in any way to undermine the father’s role in his child’s life, the mother was plainly the child’s overall primary carer giver during her first year of life.

During the child’s second year of life, whilst she was in her father’s sole care for more days (i.e. 41 days) she was also in her mother’s sole care for more of the time (i.e. 136 days). The child was in father’s sole care for less time in her third year of life (i.e.101 days) and less time in the care of both of them jointly. She was in mother’s sole care for 199 days in her third year of life.

On any view, the period between 19/2/24, when the mother travelled with the child to Japan from France, until 28/4/25 is very significant. The data reveals that the child was in mother’s care for 265 days over the period leading up to the really contentious time in the child’s life.

It seems to me that the second and third year of any child’s life are crucial in terms of that child’s development of his or her attachment with his or her parent/s or alternative primary care giver/s and their bond with the child.