Court rules on child contact arrangements in international custody dispute, emphasizing welfare and abduction risk mitigation.

Citation: [2023] EWFC 271 (B)
Judgment on


The case law involves a judgment concerning child arrangements following the separation of MA and TA, focusing on the 3-year-old child’s contact time with his father, both within the UK and in the father’s home country, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Key topics include the international jurisdictional challenges, principles of contact, safeguarding, and the risk of abduction in a non-Hague Convention country.

Key Facts

MA (Mother) and TA (Father) are involved in a dispute over contact arrangements for their 3-year-old son (Z). MA is opposed to Z traveling to the UAE due to a fear of abduction, despite no dispute on the principle of contact itself. The case lays out their differing backgrounds, allegations of domestic abuse which focused more on anger and emotion rather than a need for factual determination, and concerns over parental capabilities and motives. Key to the case is the prior conduct of both parents, including positive representations of each other to third parties and the lack of evidence for the alleged threat of abduction by the father.

The judgment rests on several legal principles:

  1. Principle of Contact: The court acknowledges the importance of both parents in a child’s life and seeks to ensure a safe and meaningful relationship with the non-resident parent ([2023] EWFC 271 (B) at [2], [17]).

  2. International Jurisdiction and Abduction Risk: The Hague Convention on Child Abduction was considered as the UAE is a non-signatory, leading to concerns over abduction risks and jurisdiction challenges (at [11], [21], [83-85]).

  3. Welfare of the Child: The court’s paramount concern is the welfare of the child, specifically considering the emotional harm that potential abduction could cause and the child’s need for contact with the paternal family (at [112-113]).

  4. Safeguarding Issues: There were no safeguarding concerns preventing contact, and allegations of domestic abuse were not seen as requiring judicial determination in this case (at [7-8]).

  5. Risk Mitigation: The court took into account measures to mitigate the abduction risk, including a written agreement enforceable in the UAE, supported by oaths on the Koran and a security bond (at [110-111]).

  6. Parental Responsibility and Conduct: Both parents’ behavior before the court, particularly the father’s positive attitude and mother’s opposition to contact despite the lack of evidence of abduction threats, influenced the outcome (at [102], [106-107]).


The court decided on a contact arrangement that included supervised and unsupervised contact in the UK and an eventual move towards contact in the UAE, conditional upon the establishment of legal safeguards to mitigate the risk of abduction. The court also ordered the discharge of the prohibited steps order at a future date after reassessment and conditional on the adherence to the terms set within this judgment (at [116-118]).


The judgment of HHJ Haigh serves as a significant reminder of the complexity of international child arrangement cases, especially involving non-Hague Convention countries. The UK court clearly prioritized the welfare of the child while navigating the intricacies of international law and safeguarding against abduction risks. The principles applied demonstrate the importance of thorough risk assessment, the father’s authentic engagement with the court process, and the substantial weight given to both the emotional welfare of the child and the contribution of contact with the non-resident parent to the child’s identity and well-being. The case reaffirms the courts’ commitment to child welfare and the importance of protective legal measures in cross-jurisdictional custody disputes.

Related Summaries