Amy Rowe, Maria Wright, and Samuel Isaac (instructing Michael Edwards at 4PB) successfully represented the respondent mother in this case where the court refused the father's application for a summary return order to Dubai.
The father made an application for the summary return of the parties' three children to Dubai under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court following the mother's removal of the children to London in January this year. The father argued that the mother had abducted the children to London and that it was in their best interests to be returned to Dubai.
The family lived in Dubai until June 2020, then relocated to London for the father's work. The family then lived in London until August 2024, when they moved back to Dubai for the father's work. The mother alleged financial abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father throughout their marriage, which had exacerbated during their time in Dubai. She also argued the children had not acquired habitual residence in Dubai. The father denied the allegations of abuse and argued the children had become habitually resident in Dubai. He argued a return to Dubai would be in the children's best interests, and he offered protective measures which are annexed to the judgment.
Expert evidence was obtained on the new Dubai "Federal Law of Civil Status" laws, which the father argued provided a relocation jurisdiction, the possibility of joint custody and the enforcement of protective measures.
The mother defended the proceedings on the basis that she had no immigration status in Dubai, she would not be protected from domestic abuse, a return would cause her mental health to decline and the children's stronger ties to England. It was also argued that there was too much uncertainty about how the new "Federal Law of Civil Status" laws would be implemented and whether there was in fact an effective relocation jurisdiction.
In reaching its decision, the court assessed a range of factors, including the children's level of integration in both countries, the effect a return might have on the mother's mental health, her ability to access support or legal recourse in Dubai, the lack of clarity surrounding the new family legislation, and the practicality of maintaining the father's involvement if the children remained in England. Peel J held that:
- The move to Dubai was precarious and that the "unsettling" atmosphere did not allow for the children to develop strong roots in that country. By comparison, the children's connection with England "in terms of time spent, family roots and quality of family life" was "incomparably greater". Additionally, the maternal grandmother, an "important figure" in the children's lives on whom the mother relies significantly for childcare, lives in London and had no intention of returning to Dubai.
- The mother's history of mental health issues, taken together with the "untested" nature of the new regime in Dubai, created "uncertainty" regarding the remedies available to her and "how easy it would be [for her] to obtain domestic abuse protection orders".
- The mother's reliance on the father for a visa in Dubai could risk her "visa being automatically invalidated upon return" if the father were to renege on his protective measures, without any certainty of enforcement or sanctions against the father in that jurisdiction. As the judgment makes clear, "even if the risk of breach is low, the effects of breach would be significant. At the very least, it would be a source of anxiety for M to be reliant on continued adherence to the measures by F".
- Therefore, "weighing up all the evidence...in the round and as part of an interlocking jigsaw" it was in the children's interests for the father's application to be dismissed, and for them to remain in London.
- The parties were directed to attend mediation regarding finances and child arrangements.
We are proud to have represented our client on a legally aided basis. The client has been prevented from accessing marital funds, including for legal advice, leaving her in a highly precarious and vulnerable position. Hunters' new legal aid offering allows us to provide our expertise on international children matters to vulnerable clients who need it most.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
