WX v YZ

In determining child arrangements after an international relocation, the court must conduct a welfare evaluation focused on the children’s present and future circumstances. Where contact abroad creates a real risk that a foreign legal system may impede the children’s return, safeguards may be required before international contact takes place. Those safeguards may include a locally enforceable agreement, a written pledge against travel restrictions or re-litigation of past events, parental accompaniment, and control of passports. The court may impose such arrangements where the parents’ relationship has substantially broken down and the children’s stability requires clarity and security.

The parents, both Indian nationals, had lived with their three children in Dubai. In 2020 they concluded arrangements, approved by a Dubai court, under which the mother had custodianship and consent was given to relocation to the United Kingdom by July 2021. In July 2021 the mother brought the children to England and did not return them to Dubai. The father initially sought their summary return, but later accepted that they should remain living with the mother in England.

The remaining issues concerned international contact, the need for a new or supplementary UAE agreement, possible restrictions on travel, passport control, and whether Christmas contact could occur in Dubai. The central issue was how to secure the children’s welfare and safe return during contact in a jurisdiction where English family orders might not be recognised or enforced.

1. Welfare determination. The court conducted a welfare evaluation concerning the children’s future living arrangements. Their wishes and feelings, age, maturity, education, settled life in England, relationships with both parents, and need to remain together were significant considerations.
2. Existing agreement. The 2020 agreement no longer provided a sufficiently solid basis for future arrangements. It had been placed in dispute, the father had sought summary return notwithstanding it, and the parties’ trust had substantially broken down. The court therefore approached the case by reference to the present circumstances and the children’s future welfare, without making findings about disputed past events because the parties had chosen not to give evidence.
3. International contact. The evidence concerning UAE law established uncertainty about the recognition and enforcement of foreign family orders. A child present in the UAE could be treated as resident there, and the father’s status as guardian could affect passports, travel, and relocation. The Children Act 1989 position in England, involving shared parental responsibility and consultation, could not safely be assumed to operate in the UAE.
4. Safeguards. Before international contact occurred, the parents were required to put a new comprehensive agreement through the Dubai courts and for the father to give a separate or incorporated pledge not to impose a travel ban or raise past alleged wrongs. The mother was to accompany the children on foreign travel and retain their passports for the foreseeable future. These measures were protective, not necessarily permanent, and the father could re-apply if they became unduly onerous.
5. Disposition. Contact in Dubai could proceed during the Christmas period only if the UAE safeguards were formalised before Boxing Day. Otherwise, the contact had to take place in the United Kingdom.

1. High Court (Family Division): On 13 August 2021 the father issued a without-notice relocation application. On 18 August 2021 a Deputy High Court Judge declined to order the children’s immediate return and directed a welfare report. The present court determined the outstanding arrangements and imposed safeguards for international contact.