HF, KF and LF (No 2)(Children; Inherent Jurisdiction; Return Order), Re

Where an application seeks the return of children from outside the jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction, and the court has sufficient evidence to undertake a welfare assessment, the court should apply the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The children’s wishes must be assessed in light of their age, understanding and the circumstances in which those wishes arose. A parent’s wrongful removal or retention of children, and failure to promote their relationship with the other parent, may materially affect the weight given to the children’s present preferences and the assessment of harm. A return may be ordered where the harm likely to result from continued separation and damaged relationships outweighs the difficulties of transition, particularly where support and protective arrangements can reduce those difficulties.

The mother sought the summary return of her three children from Dubai to England and Wales under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The children had previously lived in England, but the father had taken them to Pakistan and then Dubai following the breakdown of the parties’ relationship. In the earlier jurisdiction judgment, the court found wrongful removal or retention and held that it had jurisdiction to determine the return application: Re HF, KF and LF (Children)(Habitual Residence) [2025] EWHC 3306 (Fam).

By the final hearing, the court had evidence about the children’s current lives, their wishes and feelings, their relationship with each parent, and available support. The central issue was whether the children’s welfare required their return to England.

1. The court ordered the return of all three children to England within 28 days under the inherent jurisdiction. The children were to be treated together, and the court would not separate them.

2. Because the court had substantial evidence about the children’s circumstances, including a Cafcass assessment and the earlier fact-finding exercise, the appropriate approach was a welfare analysis under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, rather than a purely summary return exercise.

3. The children expressed wishes to remain with their father in Dubai. Those wishes were given careful consideration but reduced weight because of their young ages, limited understanding of the significance of the father’s conduct, the unsettled circumstances in which their preferences had developed, and evidence that their views of their mother had been influenced by information from the father or paternal family.

4. The children’s physical needs were being met in Dubai, but their educational and emotional needs were not adequately met. Their relationship with their mother had been fractured by the father’s conduct, and video contact alone was insufficient to repair it. The children required substantial time with their mother and professional assistance.

5. The transition to England could cause difficulty, especially for the younger children, but appropriate support was available through the mother’s domestic-abuse charity, the local authority and other agencies. The mother had the capacity to meet the children’s needs with that support. The father could travel to England and assist with transition, although his stated inability to do so was rejected as unconvincing.

6. The court accepted that the children had suffered harm through separation from their mother and that continued separation created a risk of lasting harm. Any harm arising from return was outweighed by the harm of leaving the children in Dubai. The court kept Practice Direction 12J in mind but concluded that no further report or evidence was necessary before deciding the return application.

7. The court directed a referral to the relevant local authority. It could not compel the father to return with the children, but considered his assistance with their transition into the mother’s care highly beneficial.

The judgment records an earlier jurisdiction determination in the same proceedings. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the return application in Re HF, KF and LF (Children)(Habitual Residence) [2025] EWHC 3306 (Fam). The present judgment determined the substantive return application.