Key Facts
- •Father (MB) applied for the return of his two children (AB, 15, and BB, 12) from England to Qatar.
- •Children lived in Qatar with their mother (KB) until July 2023 when the mother moved them to the UK without the father's consent.
- •The father alleged domestic abuse, while the mother denied it.
- •The children expressed a strong desire to remain in the UK and not return to Qatar or their father.
- •Qatari courts rejected the father's application for contact with the children in Qatar, and his appeal was dismissed.
- •The mother obtained a 5-year skilled worker visa in the UK and secured employment.
Legal Principles
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to order the return of a child to a non-Hague Convention country.
Re J (A child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80
The child's welfare is the paramount consideration.
Re J (A child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80
Summary return should not be automatic but may be in the best interests of the child.
Re J (A child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80
The court considers factors such as the child's connection to each country, length of time spent in each country, and the ability of each jurisdiction to resolve the issue.
Re J (A child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80
The court must consider the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989, s.1(3)
There is a presumption that parental involvement furthers a child's welfare (unless the contrary is shown).
Children Act 1989, s.1(2A)
Outcomes
The father's application for the return of the children to Qatar was dismissed.
The court found that the children's welfare required them to remain in the UK, considering their settled status, the disruption of a return, concerns about their voices being heard in the Qatari legal system, and their strong wishes to stay in the UK. The court also noted the Qatari court's implicit acceptance of the children remaining in the UK.