A & B (Summary return: Inherent jurisdiction: Nigeria), Re

Where children are wrongfully removed to a non-Convention country, the High Court may retain jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1986 if the children were habitually resident in England and Wales when the application was issued. Subsequent integration in the foreign country does not defeat that jurisdiction.

A summary return application under the inherent jurisdiction is determined by the children’s best interests. The court must undertake a swift, realistic and unsentimental welfare assessment. The 1980 Hague Convention principles must not be applied directly or by analogy. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 may nevertheless provide a helpful framework.

The mother sought the summary return to England of two young children whom the father had taken from England to Nigeria without her consent and retained there. The children and both parents were Nigerian nationals, but the family had lived in England for nearly three years. The children had been habitually resident in England, attended school or nursery there, and held immigration leave valid until 2028.

The father argued that the children were now settled in Nigeria and that the English court lacked jurisdiction. The mother sought their return to her care in England. The court had to determine the relevant date for habitual residence and whether return was in the children’s best interests.

1. Jurisdiction. The application was not a bare inward return application. The mother sought the children’s return to her care, bringing it within section 1(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1986. Under sections 1, 2, 3 and 7, the relevant date for habitual residence was the date of the application, 25 September 2025.
2. The children were habitually resident in England on that date. They had lived there for most of their lives, were integrated into English social, family and educational life, and had not become familiar with Nigeria. The father’s later arrangements in Nigeria could not be used to manufacture a jurisdictional defence during prolonged proceedings. As Nigeria was not a 1996 Hague Convention state, domestic law governed the continuing jurisdiction.
3. Summary return. Applying Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] 3 WLR 14 and Re O (Summary Return: Non-Convention Country) [2025] EWCA Civ 660, the decisive question was the children’s best interests. The court must not apply the 1980 Hague Convention by analogy. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 was used as a helpful framework.
4. England had become the children’s home country. Their welfare favoured return because it restored their relationship with their primary carer, addressed the likely emotional harm caused by their removal and prolonged lack of contact, and returned them to a familiar environment. The court did not determine the disputed domestic abuse allegations, which required investigation in substantive welfare proceedings.
5. The children were ordered to return to England by 22 May 2026. The father was required to fund and arrange the flights and lodge the children’s Nigerian passports with the Tipstaff. Pending return, regular indirect contact with the mother was ordered. On return, the children were to spend alternating weeks with each parent on an interim basis, with further child-arrangements directions listed for 4 June 2026.