AM v AF (Return Order: Dubai)

For a summary return application to a non-Hague Convention country under the inherent jurisdiction, the governing consideration is the child’s best interests. The court must make a swift but careful welfare assessment and must not import the technical concepts or presumptions of the 1980 Hague Convention. It may begin by identifying the child’s home country through a common-sense assessment of the child’s closer connection, considering matters such as nationality, residence, language, culture and education. Habitual residence is a separate factual question concerned with integration in a social and family environment. An expatriate child may acquire habitual residence in the country where the family’s immigration status, accommodation and social life depend on a parent’s employment. Return may be ordered subject to practical conditions protecting the child’s welfare and relationship with both parents.

The parents had two children, born and initially habitually resident in England. In August 2023 the family moved to Dubai for the mother’s teaching employment. The father returned to England after the marriage ended in September 2024, while the mother and children remained in Dubai. During an agreed holiday in England in July and August 2025, the father applied for child arrangements orders and retained the children. The mother applied under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for their return to Dubai.

The court had to determine whether the children were habitually resident in England when the Children Act applications were issued, whether Dubai was their home country for inherent-jurisdiction purposes, and whether return to Dubai was in their best interests.

1. Children Act applications. The relevant date for habitual residence was the date of issue. By July and August 2025 the children were integrated into life in Dubai: they had lived there for nearly two years, attended the same school, had a settled home and social network, and were primarily cared for there by their mother. The fact that the family’s immigration status, accommodation and income depended on the mother’s employment did not prevent habitual residence being acquired. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction under section 2(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986 and dismissed both C100 applications.
2. Home country. Applying the common-sense approach in Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] 3 WLR 14, the court considered the children’s connection with each country, including nationality, language, culture, education, length of residence and settled home. By 8 August 2025 Dubai had become their home country.
3. Inherent jurisdiction. The application for summary return to a non-Hague country was determined by the children’s best interests. The court followed the approach summarised in Re O (Summary Return: Non-Convention Country) [2025] EWCA Civ 660. The 1980 and 1996 Hague Convention concepts did not apply directly or by analogy. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 was used as a helpful framework, although not as a mandatory checklist.
4. The children were settled and thriving in Dubai. Relocation to England would disrupt their education and established life and would create substantial uncertainty for both children and mother. Both parents could meet their needs, and the mother demonstrated a willingness to facilitate substantial holiday and indirect contact. A return order to Dubai was therefore in their best interests.
5. The order was made subject to conditions, including a consent joint-custody application in Dubai, residence with the mother while she remained there, substantial holiday contact with the father, shared travel costs, and indirect contact at least three times weekly. The £5,000 bond was released to the mother and her prior undertakings were discharged.