Z, Re

In a summary return application, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration. The court must undertake a global and holistic analysis of all available options, informed by the findings and the relevant provisions of Practice Direction 12J. A return should not be ordered where the child’s essential welfare needs, particularly continued care by the primary carer, are exposed to material legal or practical risk. Protective measures must be effective in the legal system of the proposed return country. In this case, a return was ordered only conditionally on an Egyptian dispute settlement agreement being made into a court order and substantial advance financial provision being paid.

The father sought the return of Z, aged eight, to Egypt after the mother brought him to England without the father’s knowledge or consent in May 2022. Following a fact-finding hearing, the court made findings concerning the mother’s unlawful removal and deceit, and findings of verbal and physical abuse by the father, while rejecting more serious allegations. The father’s earlier appeal was refused in [2025] EWCA Civ 594.

The final welfare hearing considered whether Z should remain in England or return to Egypt, where the mother’s legal and financial position would be vulnerable. The central issue was whether a return could safely occur and what safeguards were required.

1. The father’s application succeeded. Z’s return to Egypt was ordered by 1 December 2026, but only if the parties entered into a dispute settlement agreement, obtained corresponding orders in the Egyptian courts by 30 October 2026 or another agreed date, and the father paid 100,000 EGP in advance.

2. The court applied the welfare principle in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. It conducted a detailed welfare investigation despite the application being framed as a summary return application, consistent with R & Y (Children) [2023] EWCA Civ 131. The court was required to compare all realistic options globally and holistically, taking account of the findings and Practice Direction 12J.

3. Z’s welfare required that he remain in his mother’s care. The legal framework in Egypt created a real risk that the father could use the Notice of Disobedience, or the absence of effective safeguards, to undermine that arrangement and retain control over the mother and child. The father’s refusal to withdraw the Notice, his incomplete evidence, and his failure to comply with financial and procedural obligations materially increased that risk.

4. The court accepted that a return could offer significant welfare benefits, including renewed direct relationships with the father and wider family, improved family and social support, and greater long-term stability than the uncertain accommodation and immigration position in England. Those benefits could not justify an unprotected return.

5. The proposed notarised declaration was insufficient because it could be withdrawn or contradicted unilaterally. An Egyptian court order founded on an agreed DSA was necessary to provide effective protection. The court also required advance payments covering accommodation, the mother’s maintenance, and arrears of Z’s maintenance, together with 20,000 EGP held for potential enforcement costs.

6. The court did not determine the parties’ submissions concerning G v G [2021] UKSC 9, leaving that issue open.

• High Court (Family Division): fact-finding decision in the same proceedings, Re Z (A Child) Fact Finding [2024] EWHC 3012 (Fam).
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the father’s appeal against the fact-finding decision was refused, [2025] EWCA Civ 594.
• High Court (Family Division): conditional return order made in the present judgment.