Court Orders Child's Return to England in Retention Case: Key Issues on Habitual Residence and Jurisdiction

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3427 (Fam)
Judgment on


The recent case Re K (A Child) (Retention in non-Hague Convention State) [2023] EWHC 3427 (Fam) raises significant issues regarding the habitual residence of a child, jurisdiction of the court in child retention cases, and the principles guiding a court’s decision to order the return of a child wrongfully retained in a non-Hague Convention state. The Family Division of the High Court meticulously navigates through the complexities associated with unilateral parental actions affecting a child’s habitual residence and the paramountcy of the child’s welfare in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for future hearings.

Key Facts

This case centers on K, a young child, whose father has applied for his summary return to England and Wales from Dubai. The key concerns for the Court include ascertaining jurisdiction based on habitual residence and ensuring any decisions regarding the child’s living arrangements align with his best interests.

Background information reveals a disagreement between the parents about the purpose of their trip to Dubai and the subsequent retention of K in this jurisdiction. The father claims the Dubai stay was meant as a holiday, while the mother presents it as an agreed opportunity to explore life together in Dubai. The mother proceeded to apply for residency for herself and K and initiated legal proceedings for divorce and custody in Dubai without the father’s knowledge—factors weighed significantly by the Court in its analysis.

The Court engaged with several key legal principles:

  1. Habitual Residence: The Court reiterated that habitual residence is fundamentally a factual question focusing on a child’s situation and integration within a social and family environment, guided by Supreme Court authorities in Re B (A Child) (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [2020] EWCA Civ 1187 and Re M (Children) (Habitual Residence: 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention) [2020] EWCA Civ 1105.

  2. Parental Intention: The Court considered that while parental intent regarding a child’s move is relevant, it is not determinative of habitual residence.

  3. Unilateral Parental Action: Alignment with Re R (Children) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2015] UKSC 35 allows for one parent’s unilateral actions to effect a change in habitual residence.

  4. Jurisdiction: Utilizing the 1996 Hague Convention and the Family Law Act 1986, the Court concluded that jurisdiction is anchored on the child’s habitual residence at the application’s outset and does not automatically lapse if habitual residence shifts during proceedings, drawing on Re A (A Child) (Habitual Residence: 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) [2023] EWCA 659.

  5. Child’s Welfare and PD12J: The Court was guided by the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, considering potential harm and the emotional needs of the child, invoking the principles outlined in Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49.


The Court determined that K had not achieved a sufficient degree of integration in Dubai to be regarded as habitually resident there by November 13, 2023, thus retaining the jurisdiction with the English courts. It was also found that the best interests of the child would be served by ordering a summary return to England for substantive welfare proceedings to take place.

In reaching its decision, the Court was persuaded by the duplicity of the mother’s actions in securing K’s residency in Dubai and excluding the father from decisions regarding K’s welfare. The Court ordered K’s return, subject to substantial undertakings from the father to ensure the child’s and mother’s protection and welfare in England.


Re K (A Child) (Retention in non-Hague Convention State) presents a diligent and detailed analysis of the legal framework surrounding a child’s habitual residence and jurisdiction in cases of international child retention. The Court’s commitment to the welfare principle as the overriding concern is clear throughout its judgement. Re K reaffirms that, in retaining jurisdiction and ordering a child’s return, a holistic approach, considering all factors relevant to the child’s welfare, remains the cornerstone of family law adjudications in such complex international contexts.

Related Summaries