H (A Child) (Refusal of Relocation to UAE), Re

In determining competing applications for a child to live in England or the United Arab Emirates, the court must apply the child’s best interests and the welfare checklist. A powerful welfare consideration may be the need to bring destructive, ongoing litigation to an end, particularly where parental conflict exposes the child to emotional harm. The court may attach substantial weight to the practical ability of the jurisdiction to control further litigation, travel bans and abduction risks. A permanent relocation may impair the child’s relationship with one parent, but can remain proportionate where the alternative creates greater welfare harm. Orders under the Children Act 1989, including section 91(14), may be used to secure stability and prevent renewed litigation.

The mother sought the return of H, aged five, to Dubai and the father sought orders permitting H to remain living with him in England. H had lived in Dubai until November 2024, when the father brought her to England. The family had been involved in extensive litigation in England and Dubai, including earlier child-arrangements orders providing for shared care in Dubai. The mother’s summary-return application was refused in May 2025, following which the court joined H as a party, appointed a Guardian and listed a final welfare hearing. The central issue was whether H’s welfare required residence with her mother in Dubai or continued residence with her father in England.

1. Outcome. The mother’s application for H to relocate to Dubai was refused. The father’s application for H to remain in England was granted. H was to live with her father, attend her current school and spend substantial time with her mother and maternal family.
2. Applicable approach. The parties accepted that the court had jurisdiction and that the decision was governed by H’s best interests and the welfare checklist. The court considered the competing arrangements, the likely effect of change, H’s needs, her relationships, the risk of harm and each parent’s capacity to meet her needs.
3. Ending litigation. The need to end the litigation was a powerful welfare factor. The parents had repeatedly used contact with H to gather evidence against each other. Their conduct, including the July 2025 Zoom call in which H was pressured about her wishes, exposed her to emotional harm. The court considered that this risk was more effectively controlled while H remained in England, where the court could make a section 91(14) order and reserve permission applications to the judge.
4. Comparative welfare assessment. Remaining in England would seriously impair H’s relationship with her mother, and the father and his family could not fully promote that relationship. Nevertheless, the court concluded that this harm was less serious than the harm likely to result from renewed litigation, travel bans and police complaints in Dubai. H was settled in England, had a stable school and extensive family support. Her stated wishes were given little weight because the Guardian and the court considered that they had been manipulated.
5. Proportionality and orders. The decision interfered with the mother’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, but was necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law to protect H from continuing emotional harm. The court ordered regular video contact, holiday time with the mother, monthly contact with maternal relatives, a two-year restriction on H leaving England and Wales, and a section 91(14) order until March 2027.

This was a first-instance welfare determination. Earlier proceedings included a 2022 judgment refusing the mother’s application for relocation from Dubai to England, subsequent child-arrangements and enforcement orders, and refusal of permission to appeal several orders. The court’s May 2025 refusal of summary return led to the present final hearing.