DL v BJ
[2024] EWHC 2160 (Fam)
K (A Child) (Retention in non-Hague Convention State), Re
13 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3427 (Fam)
High Court
A baby was taken to Dubai by his parents. The father wants him back in the UK. The judge decided the baby's home was still the UK because the mother tricked the father into going to Dubai. The judge ordered the baby to come back to the UK so a court can decide what's best for him.
Key Facts
- •K, a child born in April 2023, was taken to Dubai by his parents in August 2023.
- •The father, a UK national, seeks the child's return to England.
- •The mother, a Pakistani national with family in Dubai, obtained residency for herself and K in Dubai.
- •The mother initiated divorce and custody proceedings in Dubai.
- •The father alleges the mother deceived him into going to Dubai.
- •The mother alleges the father was abusive.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction in child abduction cases depends on the child's habitual residence at the time proceedings are issued, potentially considering residence at the time of the hearing.
Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention and section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Family Law Act 1986
Habitual residence is a factual assessment centered on the child's integration into a social and family environment, considering parental intentions but not solely determined by them.
Re B (A Minor: Habitual Residence) [2016] EWHC 2174; Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence) [2016] UKSC 4; Re M (Children) (Habitual Residence: 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention) [2020] EWCA Civ 1105; Re A (A Child) (Habitual Residence: 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) [2023] EWCA 659
A child's welfare is paramount when considering welfare orders, taking into account the welfare checklist and PD12J.
Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49
Outcomes
The court retained jurisdiction.
The child's habitual residence had not transferred to Dubai by the date the proceedings were issued; the mother's actions were deemed duplicitous and insufficient to establish habitual residence in Dubai.
An order was made for K's return to England.
The court determined that the advantages of returning K to England to facilitate a full welfare investigation, including ensuring contact with the father and paternal family, outweighed the potential disruption to K and the mother.