International relocation cases are commonly recognised as some of the most challenging applications to litigate. They are enormously sensitive, to both parties, and invariably have drastic consequences on the relevant child or children.
In F v M [2025] EWFC 225 His Honour Judge Marin determined M’s application for the children to visit her in China.
In refusing the application, the Judge was very clearly unimpressed by M’s oral evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder to practitioners of the importance of witnesses’ oral evidence in such applications, especially in cases where there are potentially severe consequences if the child fails to return to the jurisdiction. In this case, despite M having very strong ties to England and Wales (she had lived there for half her life, was a British citizen, and had long renounced her Chinese citizenship), and offering her mortgage-free property in central London as a guarantee for her return, the Judge found that there was a ‘very high’ risk she would not return and the consequences of not returning would have caused the children harm. This finding of a ‘very high’ risk is noteworthy when compared to the court’s assessment of risk in WO v RO & Ors [2017] EWHC 858 (Fam), a case in which the court concluded that there was a ‘moderate’ risk that M would not return. Unlike in F v M, the mother in WO v RO had retained her Chinese citizenship, her marriage to the father was the only significant connection to England and Wales, and her parents had purchased a house for her in China.
The judgment, therefore, emphasises the substantial obstacles litigants face in persuading a court that a child should be allowed to travel temporarily to a foreign jurisdiction that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. Considerable, if not decisive, importance will be given to the credibility of the witness and the practical implications of any safeguards provided by the applicant. If a bond is to be offered, practitioners should strive to ensure that it is a comprehensive package, leaving as little room for ambiguity and scrutiny as possible.
