AB v TB (Temporary Removal to Jordan)

Permission to take children to a non-Hague Convention country depends on their best interests. The court must be positively satisfied that the benefits of the visit outweigh the welfare risks if the children are not returned. The risk assessment addresses the likelihood of breach, the seriousness of the consequences, and the security obtainable through safeguards. Safeguards need not eliminate risk entirely, but must reduce it sufficiently when assessed alongside the applicant’s credibility and the children’s welfare. A substantial cultural and family benefit may justify permission where the risk of retention is very low, the consequences are understood, and appropriate conditions are imposed.

The father sought permission to take his two children from England and Wales to Jordan for family, cultural and religious visits. A pre-existing prohibited steps order prevented removal. The mother opposed the application, principally because of the risk that the children would be retained in Jordan and the serious consequences that would follow.

The court considered the parents’ history, the children’s welfare, expert evidence concerning Jordanian law, and the safeguards proposed by the father. The central issue was whether the advantages of the proposed visits outweighed the risks to the children’s welfare.

1. Applicable approach. Following and applying Re A (Prohibited Steps Order) [2013] EWCA Civ 1115, the overriding consideration was whether the proposed removal was in the children’s best interests. The court had to be positively satisfied that the advantages of visiting a non-Hague Convention country outweighed the welfare risks if the children were not returned.
2. Risk assessment. The relevant risk comprised three connected questions: the likelihood that the order would be breached; the seriousness of the consequences if breach occurred; and the level of security achievable through available safeguards. The safeguards could mitigate risk but could not make it watertight. The principal safeguard remained the court’s assessment of the applicant’s credibility.
3. Application. The likelihood of retention was very low. The father had regularly complied with contact orders, had pursued the application through lawful means, and was found to be credible despite his continuing anger and inflexibility towards the mother. The consequences of breach would be extremely serious, particularly because Jordanian law gave no automatic recognition to English family orders. Expert evidence nevertheless established that agreed orders could be registered in Jordan and strengthened by undertakings, oaths, legal representation and a financial bond.
4. The children would gain substantial benefits from knowing their paternal family and experiencing their Middle Eastern cultural and religious background. Weighing those benefits against the risks, the court was positively satisfied that the visits were in their best interests.
5. Permission was granted for a two-week visit after the 2015 school term and three-week visits in subsequent years, subject to conditions including undertakings, registration arrangements and a £5,000 bond for each visit. The mother had liberty to apply after the 2015 visit.