Hammoud v Al Zawawi

In determining child arrangements, the children’s welfare is the paramount consideration, assessed by reference to the statutory welfare checklist. A court may dismiss a relocation application where the applicant fails to provide evidence despite clear procedural directions. Where there is a substantial risk that children will not be returned from another country, contact may properly be confined to England and Wales. Safeguards, including independent supervision, may be required where there is a risk of abduction or alcohol-related impairment. Wardship is unnecessary where the court has sufficient protective powers under the Children Act 1989.

The mother sought child arrangements orders concerning three children who had lived in England since 2015 and had been cared for by her since 2017. The father, living in Oman, sought their permanent relocation there but failed to file evidence in support despite repeated opportunities and a final direction that the application would otherwise stand dismissed. The children wished to remain in England with their mother, while maintaining a relationship with their father. The issues included their living arrangements, contact with the father, safeguards against removal, and whether their existing wardship should continue.

1. The father’s relocation application stood dismissed pursuant to the earlier procedural order because he had failed to file a statement in support by the specified deadline, despite clear and fair warning.
2. In any event, the children’s welfare required them to continue living with their mother in England and attending their established schools. The court applied the paramountcy principle and had particular regard to the matters in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The children were settled and happy in England, wished to remain there, and did not wish to live or attend school in Oman.
3. The court’s decision did not affect the independent immigration functions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Any immigration decision, and any subsequent removal, remained subject to the applicable statutory and judicial review processes.
4. There could be no provision for the children to visit or stay with the father outside England and Wales for the foreseeable future. His repeated breaches of court orders, breach of undertaking, possession of an Omani order providing for the children’s removal, and access to substantial resources created an unacceptably high risk that the children would not be returned.
5. The father was permitted to see the children in England at reasonable times agreed in advance with the mother, but an independent third person had to supervise contact. Supervision was necessary both to guard against removal and to ensure that the father did not consume alcohol during contact.
6. The children’s wardship was discharged. The court had ample protective powers under the Children Act 1989; wardship was unnecessary, unjustifiable and inappropriate in the circumstances.

First-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). No appellate history is stated in the judgment.