YAQ v YAR

Facts

The Father, a US citizen, and the Mother, an Indian citizen who was a partner at an international firm, married on 3 October 2020 and lived in New York City with their son, N, born on 31 July 2021. After the Mother was promoted on the basis that she would develop her firm's business in Asia, the family flew to Singapore on one-way tickets on 4 August 2025. They had already arranged a two-year lease with an option to renew and enrolled N in an international school. While their belongings were shipped, they first lived in serviced apartments provided by her firm.

The Mother and her visiting parents moved into the leased house on 5 September 2025, while the Father stayed on in the serviced apartment. Relations deteriorated, and on 27 October 2025 the Father asked that the family return to New York. The Mother applied under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 and for an injunction against N being taken out of Singapore. The Father then applied in FC/OAIC 2 of 2025 under s 8 of the International Child Abduction Act 2010 for N's return to the USA. He alleged wrongful removal or wrongful retention under the Hague Convention and said his consent had been obtained by deceit. The application was heard by District Judge Amy Tung.

Issues

1. Whether the Father's consent to N's removal from the USA was vitiated by deceit, misrepresentation or non-disclosure
2. Whether N's habitual residence had changed to Singapore by 27 October 2025
3. Whether the Father's consent to N's retention in Singapore was conditional and breached, or vitiated by the Mother's deceit

Holding

The court dismissed the Father's application for N's return to the USA and directed the parties to agree costs, failing which they would write in for costs to be fixed. It also encouraged them to consider counselling or mediation.

Reasoning

Following TUC v TUD, once consent appears to have been given, the parent alleging deceit must prove it on a balance of probabilities. The Father travelled with the family and lived with them for a month, and he had no contemporaneous evidence that the Mother had planned beforehand to separate or to move her parents in long term. The court found no deceit that vitiated his consent to the removal.

For a young child after a short stay, the parents' shared intention carries significant weight. A document the Father himself sent the Mother described a likely return after 3-5 years, so the court found a shared intention to stay at least that long. That finding was supported by a year of planning, a lease that could run up to three years, enrolment in a school running to Grade 12, shipping all their belongings and marketing the New York home. N's habitual residence had therefore changed to Singapore, which disposed of the application.

For completeness, the court found no condition that the move was for only one or two years, and no clear condition excluding other relatives. A condition that the family stay together could be implied, but marital conflict alone cannot amount to a breach, and a parent cannot rely on his own wish to separate. Reviewing the emails and messages in detail, the court found that the Mother had not planned a separation. She had urged the Father to move into the house and try for a fresh start. She consulted lawyers only after he had done so, fearing that he would take N to the USA.

From the judgment