Background
The mother, a Chinese national, planned to return to Shanghai after years of working in England and applied to relocate with the six-year-old child. The father opposed the application: his central concern was that once the child settled in China, contact would depend entirely on the mother’s goodwill, beyond the practical reach of any English order.
Within the welfare analysis the court had to assess whether the proposed contact regime could be given legal force in China — precisely the question requiring expert evidence of Chinese law.
Instruction and questions addressed
With the court’s permission under FPR Part 25, we were instructed by the father — our overriding duty being to the court — to address: (1) how Chinese courts deal with contact where one parent lives abroad; (2) whether the proposed regime (school holidays in England, weekly video calls, paternal visits to China) could be converted into an instrument enforceable in China; (3) the litigation route, realistic timescales and enforcement tools open to the father in China if the mother defaulted; and (4) practical issues of the child’s nationality status, travel documents and exit-entry administration.
Key points of the opinion
The report explained that a Chinese court can embody an agreed contact regime in a civil mediation statement, which carries the same enforcement force as a judgment; if the resident parent obstructs contact, the other parent may apply for enforcement, and the court may impose fines or detention as indirect compulsion (Civil Code Article 1086; the enforcement provisions of the PRC Civil Procedure Law).
It was equally candid about the limits: enforcement of contact in China proceeds mainly by indirect compulsion and can be slow in cross-border settings, and the English order itself would have no direct force in mainland China. The report therefore recommended sequencing — secure an enforceable Chinese instrument before relocation is finalised — and proposed China-workable drafting on video contact, travel costs and consequences of default.
Outcome
The court granted leave to remove but adopted the report’s sequencing recommendation, requiring the protective Chinese instruments to be in place before relocation took effect. For practitioners, the case shows that Chinese law expert evidence does more than answer “is it enforceable?” — it shapes order provisions that will actually work in China.