Case Law Search

The parties married in 2012 and had two young children. The mother is a national of Qatar. The father is a national of the UAE. They lived in Dubai until late 2016 when they moved to England. This was agreed between the parents because they considered it to be in the best interests of the children. The father remained living in Dubai but travelled to England frequently. Each parent sought the court's permission to take the children respectively to Qatar and Dubai for temporary visits. Each objected to the other having permission because of what they each said was the risk that the children would not be returned to England.

On 12th January 2018 an order recorded the parties' agreement that the children "are habitually resident" in England.

The high court judge found that there was a risk that both parents would wrongfully retain the children in Dubai or Qatar and that this would be significantly detrimental to their welfare. Though the risk of the father doing so was thought to be higher, the parents should be ‘treated equally’. The judge gave the mother and the father permission respectively to take the children to Qatar and Dubai for the purpose of holidays, with undertakings given by each parent and the requirement that written agreements are "lodged and made into orders of the UAE court and the Qatar court" before the children would be permitted to travel to these states.

The mother appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

The court noted that, this case provides a clear example of the additional complications and potential obstacles which arise when parents disagree about whether their children should be permitted to travel between states which do not have reciprocal legal arrangements in force.