[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

It was confirmed in the course of the hearing that, in the event the mother’s application succeeded, the father would still accompany the child to Japan and that he would look to remain there for some months pending, hopefully, the determination of any litigation that may be necessary there to settle her future. Accordingly, the proposed undertakings set out by the mother remain relevant for my consideration.

The father has sought a range of undertakings from the mother [207/510]. In response, she has put forward the updated draft undertakings before me [332/510]. It is my understanding that she continues to agree to abide by such undertakings in any event [223/510]. That said, there are issues as to the extent of the provision sought by the father.

In my judgment, whilst it can be entirely ‘without prejudice’ to his primary case, it would be helpful if the father acceded to a similar non-molestation undertaking as that provided by the mother. That said, I cannot compel him.

In view of the child’s lived experience until Spring 2025, it seems to me that the undertakings should provide for a shared parental care arrangement as set out at paragraph ‘h’ of the schedule [332/510] after her return to Japan. Whilst it does not follow in the light of recent developments in relation to mother’s contact, and my determination in relation to the Article 13(b) defence, that the presence of the maternal grandmother is necessary, this would plainly be a familiar scenario for the child, or in more antiquated legal terms, this would amount effectively to a reinstatement of the ‘status quo ante’ in accordance with the earlier part of this judgment pending any final determination of her future in Japan.

I note that the mother is prepared to cover the costs of the child’s flight to Japan. If the father remains willing to do so, it seems sensible to me that he should accompany her back to Japan.

The mother is unwilling to contribute to father’s travel and related costs or contribute to what was described as a “fighting fund” of £10k for the father to underwrite to an extent litigation in Japan. In relation to this limb of the draft undertakings, I firstly accept the submission that these would not have amounted to elements of an appropriate undertaking if I had acceded to father’s Article 13(b) defence. Secondly, I have set out already the extent to which the parents have travelled between the two countries in recent years out of their finances. Finally, whilst I do not go so far as to say that father’s request is “egregious” in relation to the £10k contribution, I do accept that this is an unattractive aspect of his case in the light of the extent of costs that he has willingly and knowingly assumed in pursuing his own case.

For the avoidance of doubt, I endorse the remainder of the mother’s schedule. A repetition of what the child was exposed to by the parents on 18/6/25 and 19/6/25 is to be avoided and, as such, the parents’ contact with each other, at least for the immediate future, should be carefully regulated.