High Court Deliberates Children's Welfare in Summary Return Case Involving Qatar

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3177 (Fam)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice’s recent decision in the case of MB v KB ([2023] EWHC 3177 (Fam)) offers rich insight into the application of inherent jurisdiction in cases involving the summary return of children to a non-Hague Convention country. This case specifically addresses the delicate balance between the welfare of children and the legal parameters guiding decisions related to international child relocation. The judgment rendered by Deputy High Court Judge David Rees KC outlines a judicious examination of these matters and draws upon established legal principles pertaining to the welfare paramountcy and the children’s views and experiences.

Key Facts

The case revolves around MB’s application for a summary return of his two children, presently residing with their mother, KB, in England, following an unauthorised relocation from Qatar. Notably, the children had spent the majority of their lives in Qatar prior to this move. The relocation had occurred without MB’s consent, and following the move, he sought their return under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The children, particularly the eldest, AB, articulated a strong preference for remaining in the UK due to negative experiences and their relationship with their father.

Paramountcy of Child Welfare

Central to this case is the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration, as per the House of Lords in Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Re NY (A Child) [2020] AC 665. The application of this principle required a nuanced assessment of the children’s specific circumstances, including their connection to Qatar, experiences of their familial relationships, and their current integration into the UK.

Children’s Wishes and Feelings

Reflecting section 1(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children were given significant weight, especially considering their ages and levels of understanding. The views of the children, represented by a Guardian and articulated through a CAFCASS officer, underscored their apprehension about returning to Qatar and their adverse experiences with the father.

Jurisdictional Concerns and Comparative Welfare Analysis

The jurisdictional capabilities of hearing and effectively considering the children’s interests became a pivotal point. In particular, the court scrutinised whether the Qatari legal system would sufficiently account for the children’s voices within judicial proceedings akin to the process available in England.

Summary Return and Disruption

Another critical consideration was the potential disruption a summary return to Qatar would cause, given the family’s settlement in the UK, and the children’s schooling and social integration.

Long-term Welfare versus Summary Return

The court was clear in its differentiation between deciding on a summary return and determining the children’s long-term welfare and residence, aligning with the ‘swift and unsentimental’ approach advised in cases of summary return applications under the inherent jurisdiction.

Outcomes

Deputy High Court Judge David Rees KC concluded not to order a summary return of the children to Qatar. This decision rested on the welfare paramountcy principle, with particular emphasis on the children’s established aversion to returning, their seamless transition into life in the UK, the likely lack of comprehensive consideration of their views in Qatari proceedings, and the consequent psychological distress a summary return would engender.

Conclusion

The judgment in MB v KB stands out for its meticulous application of child welfare principles to the context of summary return under inherent jurisdiction. Through examining the connections of the children to each country, the cultural and legal landscape of Qatar, and the particular circumstances and wishes of the children, this decision underscores the court’s commitment to prioritising children’s welfare in international relocation disputes. While the case involved non-Hague Convention jurisdictions, it remains a salient example of the delicate interplay between legal frameworks, jurisdictional capabilities, and the paramount importance of considering the unique circumstances and voices of children within the core of family law proceedings.

Related Summaries