G v B

In a non-Convention case, an application for summary return is determined by the individual children’s welfare. Return is not automatic merely because children have been removed from another country. The court may adopt an abbreviated procedure, but the extent of inquiry remains a matter of judicial discretion.

Oral evidence and fact-finding are not the default in a summary return application, particularly where written evidence permits a proportionate welfare evaluation. The court must assess the whole welfare picture, including the children’s degree of connection with each country, the effect of separation from important family members, the impact of a return on a primary carer, the legal and practical position in the receiving country, and any protective measures offered.

The father applied under the inherent jurisdiction for the summary return of three children from England to Dubai. Dubai is not a party to the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother opposed return, relying on the children’s stronger connection with England, her mental health, alleged domestic abuse, uncertainty concerning her immigration and legal position in Dubai, and the loss of support from her mother.

The court considered whether to conduct a fact-finding hearing or receive oral evidence about the allegations, the extent of the welfare inquiry required, the effect of protective measures, and the children’s future arrangements. The central issue was whether return to Dubai was in the children’s welfare interests.

1. Application dismissed. The children’s welfare required that they remain in England. Any future child arrangements application was to be made to the local family court.
2. In a non-Convention case, the welfare of the individual child remains the paramount consideration. The principles of the Hague Convention do not apply as an overriding or automatic basis for return. A summary return order may be made without a full merits investigation, but only where return is found to serve the child’s welfare.
3. The court should distinguish the return application from the later determination of long-term child arrangements. Both stages are welfare-based, but the return application is more susceptible to abbreviated proceedings. Oral evidence should be expressly justified and should not be treated as the default. A court may take allegations at their highest and assume the maximum alleged risk where that provides a proportionate and pragmatic means of evaluating welfare.
4. The welfare evaluation required consideration of the children’s degree of connection with England and Dubai, the length and quality of their lives in each country, the significance of the maternal grandmother, the likely effect of return on the mother’s mental health and consequently on the children, uncertainty concerning immigration and legal remedies in Dubai, and the practical reliability and consequences of the proposed protective measures.
5. The children had much deeper and more enduring roots in England. Their four-month relocation to Dubai had been precarious and accompanied by parental conflict. The mother’s likely loss of family support, dependence on the father, uncertain visa position, possible exposure to prolonged litigation, and uncertainty about relocation and protection proceedings outweighed the benefits advanced for return. Protective measures mitigated some risks but did not answer the wider welfare evaluation, particularly because their consequences depended on continued compliance and some might not be implemented before the visa deadline.
6. The court directed that the parties attend mediation concerning finances and the children and made provision for contact between the father and the children in England.