[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

The mother’s case, in a little more detail, may be set out as follows: She primarily asserts that the child has been habitually resident in Japan since her birth in that country. On her case, various “visits” by the child to England (and other countries) have not interrupted her status. She submits by way of her leading counsel’s opening written argument, and amplified in the course of the hearing, that the father wrongfully retained the child in England within the meaning of the Convention on a date between c18/6/25 and 24/6/25 at the latest. The mother also resists the father’s Article 13(b) defence. That said, the mother does agree, if successful, to abide by a number of undertakings relating to the child’s ‘landing’ in Japan in any event.