Background
The parents — a British father and a Chinese mother — separated in London and disputed the living and contact arrangements for their young child. The mother wished to spend extended periods in China with the child each year; the father was concerned that, once the child was in mainland China, an English Child Arrangements Order would be difficult to enforce.
The Family Court therefore needed evidence of Chinese law: how does the PRC deal with custody and contact? Would an English Child Arrangements Order have any effect in mainland China? And if one parent failed to honour contact arrangements while in China, what remedies would be available there?
Instruction and questions addressed
We were jointly instructed by both parties as Single Joint Expert, reporting in accordance with Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The court-approved questions were: (1) how parental custody, guardianship and contact rights are determined under Chinese law; (2) whether an English Child Arrangements Order is capable of recognition and enforcement in mainland China; (3) what practical measures can secure contact arrangements within China; and (4) the implications of household registration (hukou), schooling and exit-entry administration while the child is in China.
Key points of the opinion
The report explained that the Marriage and Family Book of the PRC Civil Code (Articles 1084–1086) resolves custody by reference to the best interests of the child; the genuine wishes of a child aged eight or above must be respected, and the non-resident parent has a statutory right of contact (visitation).
On recognition and enforcement, the report set out the position candidly: there is no bilateral treaty between the United Kingdom and the PRC on the recognition of family judgments, and mainland China is not covered by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (which, in relation to China, extends only to the Hong Kong and Macao SARs). An English Child Arrangements Order cannot be directly enforced in mainland China; a Chinese court seised of the matter would decide custody and contact afresh under Chinese law.
The report then analysed the practical safeguards realistically available: a notarised custody-and-contact agreement executed in China; embedding contact terms in a mediation statement issued by a Chinese court, which is directly enforceable; and the effect and limits of mirror undertakings and passport controls before travel.
Outcome
Neither party challenged the report and no oral evidence was required. The court adopted the report’s account of Chinese law in its judgment and approved travel to China subject to the safeguards recommended. The case illustrates how heavily the English court relies on accurate, neutral evidence of Chinese law in children cases with a China dimension.