In the case of CJ v. ME [2024] EWFC 112, Mrs. Justice Judd of the Family Court refused the mother's application to permit her 10-year-old daughter, P, to spend holidays in Japan. The court ruled that the risk of wrongful retention by the mother was too high, outweighing the benefits of the child experiencing her Japanese heritage. Despite the mother's willingness to implement safeguards, including renouncing her Japanese citizenship, the court extended the prohibited steps order until 2028. The judgment emphasizes the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the potential emotional and legal consequences of international custody disputes.
Case Overview:
The Family Court was asked to determine whether P, a 10-year-old girl, should be allowed to spend holidays in Japan with her mother. The mother, who has previously forged the father's signature on a Japanese divorce document, sought permission for P to travel regularly to Japan. The father opposed the application, fearing that the mother might not return P to the UK.
Legal Issues:
Risk of Wrongful Retention: The key legal issue was whether the risk of the mother retaining P in Japan outweighed the benefits of the proposed holiday arrangements. The court applied the principles from Re K (Removal from Jurisdiction: Practice) [1999] and Re R (A Child) [2013] concerning temporary removal from the jurisdiction.
Enforcement of Orders in Japan: The court considered the enforceability of English court orders in Japan, particularly under the 1980 Hague Convention, and the complexities introduced by the mother's previous actions, including the forged divorce document.
Court’s Analysis:
Mrs. Justice Judd carefully weighed the risks associated with allowing P to travel to Japan against the potential benefits. Despite expert evidence suggesting that a return order would likely be granted if the mother retained P, the court found that the risks, including possible prolonged legal battles and emotional harm to P, were too significant. The mother's past behavior, particularly her lack of insight into the harm caused by her actions, further undermined her case.
Judgment Summary:
The court denied the mother's application for P to travel to Japan for holidays, extending the prohibited steps order until 2028. The judgment stressed the importance of P's welfare, noting that while contact with her mother in England should continue, the risks associated with international travel were too high at this time.
Implications:
This case underscores the challenges in international custody disputes, particularly in ensuring the enforceability of orders across different jurisdictions. The decision reflects the court's cautious approach in cases where there is a history of deception or potential for wrongful retention, prioritizing the child's stability and welfare.
Comentários