British father, 57, smuggled his two-year-old daughter out of China while his much younger wife was at work as he thought she was cheating on him, court told

A British father has won a legal battle after spiriting his two-year-old daughter out of China because he believed his much younger wive was having an affair.

The 57-year-old – identified only as O – ‘clandestinely’ whisked his toddler to the airport and flew back to the UK while her Chinese mother was at work, the High Court was told. 

The father had first met his wife – who is 20 years his junior and only referred to as E – in China 15 years ago, before they wed in Guam in 2020.  They later welcomed their baby girl – known in the court judgement as I – in 2022. 

But their parents’ relationship became ‘strained’ after the birth, with the father suspecting the mother was having an affair when he moved away from the major city where they resided for a new job. 

The mother remained in her previous role, which included a lengthy commute and night shifts. 

Now after ‘clandestinely’ removing his child from the home and bringing her back to England, the father has succeeded in persuading a judge not to have the toddler immediately sent back to China with his wife. 

He argued that Chinese courts discriminate against fathers and that he could possible ‘be the subject of proceedings for abduction’ if he was forced to go through the judicial process in the East Asian country. 

Mrs Justice Judd said that despite her ‘considerable concern’ at his behaviour, the little girl’s future should be determined by the courts in this country. 

The mother discovered her child had been taken when she looked at the baby camera in the morning, later asking a friend to go to the home – where nobody was present. 

‘The car rental company used by the family were able to track the family car to the airport, and the mother then discovered what had happened,’ the court heard. 

Later she also found out her husband had ‘suddenly left his job’. He had then sent her one message to inform her that the child was safe before switching his phone off. 

After some time, the wife was able to make contact with her husband and flew to England to see her daughter. She then applied for a court order to have her daughter returned to China.

On behalf of the father, Jennifer Perrins told the court that I has now been in Britain for just over six months, and that she is a ‘thriving’ British national. 

Ms Perrins also said that O had several concerns if the matter was to play out in Chinese courts, including being subject to proceedings for abduction as well as his ‘insecure’ immigration position.

‘He avows that in the circumstances he cannot accompany I back to China if a return is ordered,’ the court heard.

The father also claimed that E behaved ‘inappropriate[ly]’, at times, and alleged she lacked empathy and had also been abusive and aggressive towards their daughter.  

It was also heard from an expert that the Chinese courts cannot order join or shared custody, whilst Ms Perrins claimed there was evidence suggesting their judicial system was ‘discriminatory’ towards fathers. 

She argued this would breach the father’s human rights under UK law.  

The mother’s lawyer accused the husband of behaving in a ‘clandestine and deceitful way’ in removing their daughter from the country.

‘She submits that I has lived in China all her life, having only visited the UK once before being abducted there last year,’ the judge was told.

‘She was totally settled in China, attending nursery, seeing family and friends, and having her mother as her primary carer. She has a much loved family pet, a cat. The father is not attempting to enable I to keep up her Chinese language.’

However, Justice Judd ruled against the application, saying the child’s future should be decided in Britain, despite ‘powerful arguments put forward’.

‘I have come to the conclusion that it is not in her [child I’s] best interests to be returned to China on a summary basis for welfare decisions to be taken there,’ she said.

‘I realise that this will not be easy for the mother, who has spent a great deal of money and time engaging in these proceedings and coming to see her daughter.

‘In the circumstances of this particular case, I am particularly concerned about the expert evidence that the courts in China do not appear to make decisions allowing relocation back to this country in the absence of agreement, and also as to their ability to enforce cross border contact.

‘The problem is that should I make an order for summary return, it seems it will be decisive as to where I will be brought up.

‘It may be decisive as to whether or not she has contact with her father in England, and, if he is not able to settle permanently again in China, it may be decisive as to whether I lives with her mother or her father.

‘I do not assume for one minute that there is no detriment to I by staying here for longer, being kept away from her mother and what is familiar to her, but at least she has become accustomed to living with her father in the home where she has been for four months and she does appear to be doing reasonably well at home and in nursery.

‘If the ultimate welfare decision is that she should return to live with her mother in China, she will be able to resume her life there without too much disruption to her education, language development and culture.

‘Her physical, emotional and educational needs will need to be decided for the long term, and I am concerned that a decision needs to be made about this with the full range of options, something which is ultimately in her best interests because of the importance to her of both of her parents.

‘She will have suffered harm by being removed by her father in that way and kept away from her mother for so long but ultimately I do not know enough about the capability of each of her parents to meet her emotional needs… to make a decision which would have long term repercussions.’

Justice Judd expressed her hope that the welfare proceedings can get underway as soon as possible.