X, Y, Z, Re (Children) (Summary Return to Nigeria)

In an application for summary return to a non-Hague Convention country, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration. The court may make a summary order without determining every disputed fact, provided it undertakes a swift, realistic and sufficiently informed assessment of the individual child’s best interests.

The assessment includes the child’s connection with each country, the length and nature of residence, the likely impact on the child and primary carer, the availability of protective measures, and whether the foreign court can determine future welfare issues. Habitual residence is not necessarily determinative. A return may be ordered where limited risks of emotional harm can be managed through enforceable safeguards and the foreign court remains seized of the family dispute.

The mother brought the three children, dual British and Nigerian nationals, from Nigeria to England and Wales in July 2024. They had lived and attended school in Nigeria throughout their lives. The father sought their summary return under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The mother opposed return, relying on alleged domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, the children’s settlement in England, and concerns about protection and enforcement in Nigeria.

The parties agreed that the children’s welfare was paramount and that the summary-return issue could be determined without resolving habitual residence or conducting a full fact-finding hearing. The central issue was whether, having regard to the evidence and available protective measures, return to Nigeria was in the children’s best interests.

1. Outcome. The court made a conditional summary return order. Return was to take place after the children completed their summer term, subject to protective arrangements being obtained or given.
2. The court applied the welfare principle. Its task was a swift, realistic and unsentimental assessment of the individual children’s best interests. The principles of the Hague Convention did not apply because Nigeria was not a Convention country. Habitual residence did not need to be determined.
3. The court adopted the approach in Re A and B (Children) (Summary Return: Non-Convention State) and took the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse at their highest without conducting a fact-finding hearing. The allegations nevertheless required an assessment of future risk and whether protective measures could manage it.
4. The court considered the matters identified in Re NY (A Child), including the sufficiency and currency of the evidence, the extent of factual inquiry required, welfare needs, domestic-abuse allegations, living arrangements, oral evidence, Cafcass evidence, and the respective legal and protective systems.
5. Nigeria was the children’s country of closest connection. They had lived there all their lives, were educated there, had extended family and cultural roots there, and remained connected with the Nigerian courts. Their nearly one year in England, positive schooling and friendships did not displace that conclusion. Their wishes and feelings had limited weight because of their age and limited understanding, although their positive views of Nigeria and their father were relevant.
6. The alleged conduct, taken at its highest, created only a limited risk of emotional harm. Nigerian proceedings and available protective schemes could manage that risk. The children’s abrupt removal, separation from their father and disruption of their family, school and cultural life were also harmful considerations.
7. The return was conditional upon steps including an enforceable Nigerian order for maintenance, an undertaking or order preventing intimidation, harassment or pestering of the mother, and the father’s absence from the airport on return. A review hearing was reserved if difficulties arose in obtaining clear protection from the Nigerian courts.