MB v GK & Ors (No 2) Wardship (Welfare)

Factual and Procedural Background

These wardship proceedings concern a child ("the child") born on 5 July 2012, now nearly 4 years old. The child is the only child of the applicant mother ("the mother") and the respondent father ("the father"). The child currently resides in Singapore with his paternal grandparents. Despite a passport order issued by the English court, the father absconded from London to Singapore, residing with the child at his parents' apartment. Multiple English court orders require the child's return to England, confirmed by Singapore courts subject to the father's outstanding appeal, but the child remains separated from his mother and is a ward of the English court.

In July 2015, the English court confirmed its continuing jurisdiction over the wardship proceedings and welfare enquiry, rejecting the father's appeal against this decision. The Singapore Family Justice Courts made a mirror order in May 2016 requiring the child's immediate return to England. A Singapore judge confirmed the English court as the competent and more appropriate forum for resolving the child's future living arrangements. The current hearing considers final welfare orders regarding the child's arrangements.

The father and paternal grandparents argue the child is settled in Singapore, having been in their care since August 2013, and claim that returning the child to England would cause psychological harm due to lack of contact with the mother for over two years. They seek a social welfare report in Singapore and assert they have not participated in the English proceedings. The English court has invited their participation repeatedly, including offers for video link attendance and interpreter services, but they have declined, denying the English court's jurisdiction.

Parallel financial proceedings concern the division of equity in the former matrimonial home in London. The father contests the mother's financial claims and has instructed counsel in these proceedings but has not participated in the wardship proceedings. The court declined to adjourn the welfare hearing, noting all evidence filed by the father and grandparents in Singapore was before it, the child's prolonged separation from the mother, and the urgency of resolving welfare matters.

The mother is a Mongolian national, the father a Singaporean. They married in Singapore in 2011 and lived in London, where the child was born. The marriage was under strain by the child's birth. The child was breastfed by the mother for seven months and developed a strong attachment to her. The paternal grandparents visited London twice in 2012 and 2013. The child was taken to Singapore in mid-2013 for a short period to allow the mother to study, but the father unilaterally retained the child in Singapore from January 2014, initiating divorce and custody proceedings there without the mother's knowledge.

English courts found the child’s habitual residence remained England, rejecting the father's claim of habitual residence in Singapore. The father’s conduct was described as underhand, devious, and cruel, deliberately separating child and mother. The English Court of Appeal affirmed these findings and ordered the child's immediate return to the mother in England. The father unsuccessfully sought a stay of English proceedings, arguing Singapore was the more appropriate forum.

Since January 2014, the child has lived in the paternal grandparents' apartment in Singapore, with voluntary care agreements with local child protection services. The father’s financial situation is precarious, with liabilities and limited income prospects. The paternal grandparents claim sufficient savings for retirement and child care. The father’s statements to English and Singapore courts differ regarding his employment and financial support plans.

The child attends nursery in Singapore and appears to meet developmental milestones. The nursery staff report the child is "doing fine," with limited mention of the mother. The paternal family has limited engagement with the child's nursery and the Guardian’s enquiries.

The mother has been the child’s primary carer for the first year of life, providing appropriate care and developing a strong attachment with the child, supported by social services assessments. The father and paternal grandparents’ allegations of neglect by the mother are rejected by the court. The mother’s attempt to retrieve the child from Singapore in 2014 was an act of desperation and does not disentitle her from future care.

The mother’s immigration status in the UK is currently secure, with ongoing visa applications and plans for financial independence. She intends to provide a stable home for the child in England and acknowledges challenges ahead.

Video evidence shows a strong, affectionate bond between the child and mother during supervised and unsupervised contact visits in Singapore in 2016. The Guardian supports the child's return to the mother’s care, highlighting the child’s emotional needs and the harmful effects of prolonged separation from the mother.

The father’s attitude is described as obstructive, with a lack of insight into the child’s needs for maternal contact and a tendency to marginalise the mother. The paternal grandparents’ hostility towards the mother is influenced by the father’s animosity. The court recognises the grandparents’ care for the child’s physical needs but is concerned about the emotional impact of the child’s separation from the mother.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the English court retains jurisdiction and is the appropriate forum to determine the child's welfare and future living arrangements.
2. Whether it is in the child's best interests to return to the mother's full-time care in England.
3. The impact of the child's habitual residence status and whether it has shifted to Singapore.
4. The effect of the father's unilateral retention of the child in Singapore on the child's welfare and legal proceedings.
5. The extent to which the paternal grandparents and father have engaged with the English court proceedings and the implications of their non-participation.

Arguments of the Parties

Father and Paternal Grandparents' Arguments

• The child is now settled in Singapore under the sole care of the paternal grandparents since August 2013.
• Returning the child to England would cause psychological harm and place the child in an intolerable situation.
• They have had no meaningful involvement in the English proceedings and seek to advance their case through Singapore courts.
• The father intends to raise the child in Singapore with support from his parents and limited financial means.
• The mother is unsuitable to care for the child, and the paternal family has provided appropriate care.

Mother's Arguments

• The child’s habitual residence remains England, and the father’s retention of the child in Singapore was without her consent and unlawful.
• She was the primary carer for the child during the first year of life, with a strong emotional bond demonstrated by video evidence.
• She is capable of providing appropriate care and support for the child in England, with plans for stable accommodation and financial independence.
• The father's and paternal grandparents’ evidence is unreliable and motivated by hostility towards her.
• It is in the child’s best interests to return to her care to preserve emotional welfare and maternal relationship.

Guardian's Position

• The child has likely suffered emotional harm due to separation from the mother and will continue to do so if remaining in paternal care in Singapore.
• The mother is capable of meeting the child’s emotional and physical needs and prioritises the child’s welfare.
• Contact between the child and paternal family should continue but does not outweigh the need for return to the mother’s care.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a thorough review of all evidence from English and Singapore proceedings, including witness statements, social services reports, and video recordings of contact sessions. The court found the father’s conduct in unilaterally retaining the child in Singapore was underhand, devious, and contrary to the child’s welfare. The child’s habitual residence remained England, as the initial stay in Singapore was temporary and without the mother’s consent.

The court rejected the father and paternal grandparents’ claims of the mother’s neglect and unfitness, finding the mother was the primary carer during the child’s first year and that a strong attachment existed between them. The court noted the father’s and grandparents’ unwillingness to participate in the English welfare proceedings despite repeated invitations and opportunities, including video link attendance.

The Guardian’s professional opinion was accorded significant weight, emphasizing the child’s emotional harm from separation and the importance of maternal contact. The court balanced the child’s physical welfare, which was adequately met by the paternal family, against the emotional and psychological needs best met by the mother’s care. The court expressed concern about the father’s antagonism and lack of insight into the child’s needs.

The court also considered the mother’s immigration status and accommodation plans, concluding no impediment existed to her care of the child in England. The father’s financial claims and plans were inconsistent and precarious. The court found no evidence of a grave risk of harm to the child upon return to England, aligning with the Singapore court’s findings.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the child’s immediate return to the full-time care of the mother in England.

The court directed that the mother facilitate regular telephone and Skype contact between the child and the paternal family. The wardship proceedings will continue for the time being, with further hearings to consider discharge and future contact arrangements. The court prohibited the father or others from removing the child from the mother’s care and the mother from removing the child from England without consent.

This decision enforces the principle that the child’s welfare is paramount, affirming the English court’s jurisdiction and the importance of maintaining established familial bonds, particularly the maternal relationship. The ruling does not establish new precedent but applies existing principles to the facts, emphasizing the need to prevent unilateral actions that disrupt child welfare and court orders.