T v P

Facts

The applicant father, T, a British national, and the respondent mother, P, a Russian national, married in the Spring of 2023 after a seven-year relationship and had a son, Y, now two years old, who holds both British and Russian citizenship and lived in England continuously from birth. Relations deteriorated after Y's birth, the father expressing concerns about the mother's mental health, which she denies, and the mother describing pressure from the father and the paternal grandparents, including over a deed of trust reflecting the grandparents' £350,000 contribution to the family home. In late March 2025, after the father said the mother had threatened to remove Y to Russia and hidden his passports, a prohibited steps order was made ex parte and then by consent before HHJ Case at the Family Court in Reading, the court declaring jurisdiction on the basis of Y's habitual residence in England and Wales. That order expired at the end of 2025. On 1 February 2026 the family travelled to Russia for a six-day trip with return flights booked for 8 February 2026; hours before departure the mother said she would not return with Y. The mother later began divorce and child arrangements proceedings in Russia, a local court ruling in July 2026 that Y should live with her. The father issued a C66 application under the inherent jurisdiction in June 2026 and sought a declaration under the Hague Convention 1996 that Y was wrongfully retained and habitually resident here.