C (A Child: Summary Return to Pakistan), Re

In a non-Convention child-removal case, the child’s welfare is paramount. Habitual residence and wrongful removal inform the welfare evaluation but do not determine the outcome. The court decides how far it must investigate those matters and the welfare checklist.

The UK-Pakistan Protocol is guidance rather than binding law. Its underlying spirit may nevertheless be relevant even where its specific provisions are not engaged. The inherent jurisdiction may support a return order where return best protects the child’s welfare and the prospect of meaningful relationships with both parents.

The mother applied under the inherent jurisdiction for the summary return of her seventeen-month-old son from the United Kingdom to Pakistan. The child had dual British and Pakistani nationality and had lived in Pakistan with the mother, his primary carer, until the father took him to the United Kingdom on 15 August 2024.

The mother alleged that the removal was without her knowledge or consent and that documents relied upon by the father had been obtained by deceit. The father and paternal grandmother maintained that she had consented and opposed return on welfare grounds. The central issues were whether the removal was wrongful and whether, applying welfare as the paramount consideration, a return order should be made.

1. Legal framework. Pakistan is not a Convention partner of the United Kingdom for these purposes. The applicable guidance was found in Re J (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights) [2006] UKHL 40 and Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49. The child’s welfare was paramount. Habitual residence and wrongful removal were relevant but not determinative. The court could decide how far it was necessary to investigate disputed matters and the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
2. Findings. The child was habitually resident in Pakistan and had been removed without the mother’s knowledge or consent. She had been deceived and pressured into signing the Consent Letter and Affidavit. The father and paternal grandmother had lied about important matters and had failed to promote contact between the child and his mother for five months.
3. Welfare. The mother was capable of meeting the child’s physical and emotional needs and understood the importance of his relationship with his father. The father could meet physical needs but was incapable of meeting emotional needs. His conduct had caused serious emotional harm and created a continuing risk of such harm. Return offered a real possibility of a meaningful relationship with both parents, whereas that prospect in the United Kingdom was vanishingly remote.
4. Order. The UK-Pakistan Protocol was guidance only. Its spirit was engaged, although its provisions concerning existing orders were not. The application was granted and a return order was made, with return to be secured swiftly and safely.