When considering an application for the return of a child who has been removed from a country without a parent’s consent, the courts’ paramount concern will always be the best interests of the child. Recently, the High Court ruled that a young boy whose mother had brought him to the UK without his father’s permission should be returned to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The mother and father had started a relationship in 2019. They began living together in London in March 2022 and the boy was born later that year. Having had plans to move to Dubai since the first year of their relationship, they eventually did so in December 2023, despite the mother’s reservations.

In March 2024 the mother told the father that she wished to return to the UK or the Philippines, her country of birth. Despite the father making it clear that he did not consent to her leaving with the boy, she returned to the UK with him the following month. She then informed the father that she intended to emigrate with the boy to the Philippines. The father applied for the boy’s summary return to Dubai.

Both parents accepted that their relationship had been acrimonious and that verbal and physical altercations had taken place in front of the boy. A CAFCASS officer had initially recommended that the boy remain in England, noting his and his mother’s uncertain immigration status if they returned to the UAE. Following a statement from the father relating to immigration and protective measures, however, the CAFCASS officer took the view that the merits of ordering or refusing the boy’s return were equally balanced.

Given his age, the boy’s habitual residence was dependent on that of his parents, who the Court found had intended to settle permanently in Dubai. While the boy had lived in England for a substantial portion of his life, was a British citizen and held a British passport, the Court considered that his mother was unlikely to remain in the UK in the long term, given her original intention to relocate to the Philippines.

The Court noted that a return order would separate the boy from his half-brother. However, his half-brother had spent time on holiday in Dubai and there was no reason why the siblings could not see each other there regularly. A return to the UAE would restore the boy’s relationship with his father, and there was no prospect of the parents reconciling and exposing the boy to further discord.

Taking all the evidence into account, the boy’s welfare required a summary return to the UAE. The Court’s order would set out the protective measures proposed by the father, and permission was granted for the case papers to be disclosed to the courts in the UAE, which would make decisions about the boy’s care arrangements and long-term welfare if these could not be agreed by the parents.