S (A Child): Refusal of Summary Return to UAE, Re

In a non-Convention child-abduction case, summary return is not automatic. The court must determine whether return is in the individual child’s best interests, with welfare paramount. The court should consider the child’s connections with each country, the disruption of return, the practical ability of the competing courts to resolve welfare issues, the position of the primary carer, and any alleged domestic abuse. A summary determination may be refused where a prompt welfare investigation in England and Wales is more likely, protective measures are not effectively enforceable, or return would expose the child to substantial instability and indirect harm.

The father applied for the summary return of his young son, S, to the United Arab Emirates. The mother had brought S to England and retained him there without the father’s consent. The parties accepted that S was habitually resident in the UAE and that the retention was wrongful.

The UAE was not a party to the 1980 Hague Convention. The central issue was whether summary return was in S’s best interests, or whether S should remain in England while the allegations of domestic abuse and the longer-term relocation and welfare issues were determined.

1. Application refused. Summary return of S to the UAE was inconsistent with his best interests. The court would hear submissions on expediting child arrangements and specific issue proceedings in England and Wales.
2. S’s welfare was paramount. Because the UAE was not a Hague Convention country, the court did not import the policy objectives of the 1980 Hague Convention. The decision was an individual welfare determination, not an automatic consequence of wrongful removal or retention.
3. The court applied the guidance in Re J (A Child) (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights) and Re NY (A Child). It considered the child’s connections with each country, the length of time spent there, the likely disruption of return, the position of the primary carer, and the ability of the foreign courts to determine the child’s future. Habitual residence was relevant but did not determine the welfare outcome.
4. Following the approach endorsed in Re A and B (Children) (Summary Return: Non-Convention State), the court was entitled to assess the maximum level of risk without conducting a full fact-finding hearing. The allegations of serious domestic abuse needed to be resolved promptly. On the evidence, that could occur more quickly in England and Wales because proceedings, disclosure, legal representation and English-language evidence were already available.
5. The father’s protective measures did not sufficiently safeguard S’s welfare. They could not overcome the mother’s asserted isolation, dependence, lack of legal and linguistic resources, the absence of enforceable mirror orders, and the practical difficulty of obtaining effective protection in the UAE. S was also likely to be affected by his mother’s anxiety, fear and isolation.
6. Return would require S to leave his current stable home, move first into temporary accommodation and then into another rental home, and potentially enter unfamiliar day care. Those changes were inconsistent with the stability required by a very young child. Refusal of summary return also allowed video and supervised in-person contact with the father to continue in England.