H (A Child) (Refusal of Relocation to UAE), Re

H is five years and eight months old. She has been the subject of litigation nearly all her life. There have been so many orders and hearings in this jurisdiction and in Dubai, the parties are unable to agree how many have taken place. It appears there have been eighty two hearings and orders.

The matters to be determined at this final hearing are: (i) the Applicant mother’s application for the return of H to the United Arab Emirates (Dubai); (ii) the Respondent father’s application for H to remain in England and Wales; and (iii) ancillary maters which arise to be determined.

The hearing was listed with a time estimate of four days for a full welfare determination. I refused an application for H’s summary return in May 2025 and at the same hearing joined her as a party and appointed a Guardian. At the present hearing oral evidence was taken from the Applicant, the Respondent, the paternal grandmother and from H’s Guardian, Ms Demery. The court was presented with a 952 page “core” bundle and a 763 page library bundle. A further bundle was produced on the first day of the hearing. There are helpful, if lengthy, skeleton arguments. The Applicant and Respondent have poured over every detail of each other’s cases. Much of this has focused on “re-litigating the litigation”. This judgment cannot address all the arguments raised by the parties, only the essential ones to permit the parties to understand the orders made. Helpfully Miss Renton and H’s Guardian have focused on H’s welfare needs in October 2025.

I grant the Respondent’s application and refuse the Applicant’s. H will therefore continue to reside in England. She will spend time with the Applicant. I have arrived at these principal conclusions applying the welfare checklist and having adhered to the advice of Ms Demery who supported the Respondent’s position over the Applicant’s. H needs an end to all litigation. A section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order will also be made against both the Applicant and Respondent. Any application for permission to litigate will be reserved to me. I endeavour to set out my reasons for arriving at these conclusions below.

The Applicant was born in south London in 1979. The father was born in the west of England in 1988. They entered a relationship in 2018 and married in 2019. They moved to live in Dubai. H was born in Dubai in February 2020. The parents separated in August 2020. The father has parental responsibility for H. All three are British citizens. Shortly thereafter litigation before the Family Court sitting at Central London began and has not stopped.

From birth until November 2024 H resided in Dubai. She spent quite a lot of time in England on holiday.

The Respondent issued an application for divorce on 9 December 2020. He also made an ex parteChildren Act 1989 application which was granted by a Recorder and then set aside by consent before HHJ Wright on 16 December 2020. On 15 December 2020 the Applicant issued proceedings in Dubai for the return of H to her care. On 15 January 2021 jurisdiction in England and Wales was established at a hearing before DDJ Landes. Directions were made for interim arrangements. On 12 May 2021 there was a further hearing before the Family Court sitting at Central London where directions were made to determine the Applicant’s application for leave to relocate H from Dubai to England and Wales. This was opposed by the Respondent. Decree absolute was pronounced on 8 July 2021. In August 2021 the Applicant issued an application for financial remedies. In September 2021 HHJ Cox determined the financial and children matters were inextricably linked and the proceedings were allocated to HJJ Oliver. On 27 October 2021 HHJ Oliver adjourned the Applicant’s temporary application for leave to relocate to England to the final hearing. On 6 January 2022 the Applicant asked the court to enquire into a police complaint she had made against the Respondent. On 14 January 2022 the Respondent applied for an anti-suit injunction. He made a similar application in Dubai on 28 January 2022 seeking to end the Dubai based proceedings.

On 6 April 2022 a four day contested hearing took place before HHJ Oliver. On 31 May he handed down a reserved judgment refusing the Applicant’s application for H to relocate from Dubai to England. He confirmed the jurisdiction of the court of England and Wales and ordered there should be no applications for orders from the Dubai courts (other than mirror orders) without the leave of the High Court. On 8 September 2022 HHJ Oliver made an order making clear it was in H’s best interest to live in Dubai and ordered a shared care child arrangements order which required H to reside equally between her parents on a fortnightly pattern. He made other ancillary orders and made a final financial remedies order. An anti-suit injunction was made against future litigation in Dubai.

In his judgment HHJ Oliver found the father to be a largely credible witness but criticised him for his behaviours which were not child focused. HHJ Oliver drew attention to the mother’s tendency to fabricate stories. HHJ Oliver noted that the mother had applied for temporary leave to remove on the basis that she was coming to England for a job interview, and that this proved to be false. HHJ Oliver listed ‘concerns’ about the mother, her behaviour. This included:

HHJ Oliver concluded that the mother’s behaviour demonstrated: “trying whichever way she might to either stack the cards in her favour…..All of those to my mind were indications of her trying to create an image of him being a bad and poor father when I saw nothing in the evidence to that effect.” He also found that the mother’s motivation to relocate with H to England, was not genuine, but was rather the mother “trying to reduce the amount of contact that father has with H”. He also found the mother to have “no real plan for there to be good contact between H and her father, were H to come to England”.

The mother did not appeal this decision nor the findings made within it.

On 6 January 2023 there was a hearing before HHJ Talbot to determine cross-applications regarding the proper interpretation of HHJ Oliver’s order. On 14 February 2023 HHJ Oliver refused various applications, including one for interim permission for H to reside in England. Arbuthnot J refused M’s application for a stay and permission to appeal. There was then a series of further hearings before HHJ Oliver over the summer of 2023 dealing with holidays and nursery placements. On 28 December 2023 Henke J made a collection order in respect of H.

HHJ Jacklin KC then appears to have assumed responsibility for the proceedings from April 2024. Mr Basi relies on passages from observations made by HHJ Jacklin KC, as follows, which I add to the chronology. These are:

On 30 May 2024 there was an incident between the Applicant and the paternal grandmother. The Applicant made a report to the Dubai police reporting the grandmother for threatening and abusive behaviour. The Applicant then retained H following this incident. It is important to note in amongst the chronology that H was then prevented by having any direct contact with the Respondent by the Applicant until 27 November 2024. He had seventeen indirect video sessions with the Respondent during these months. The Respondent issued a C2 application in the Family Court sitting at Central London alleging H had been abducted by the Applicant and sought H’s immediate return. On 5 June 2024 HHJ Jacklin KC ordered H’s return from the Applicant’s care to her father’s. She varied HHJ Oliver’s order stating that H must live with the Respondent for the same period that the Applicant had retained her. Cusworth J refused the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal the 5 June 2024 order on 10 July 2024. The Applicant ignored the court’s orders.

On 15 July 2024 the Respondent issued an application in Dubai to enforce the earlier child arrangements order of HHJ Oliver and the 5 June 2024 order. This was granted on 18 July 2024. There continued to be proceedings related to financial remedies before HHJ Jacklin KC which resulted in a hearing on 19 August 2024 where she dismissed the Applicant’s application for financial remedies, made a Hemain injunction against the Applicant and ordered her to pay £6 000 in costs.

Cusworth J refused a further application by the Applicant for permission to appeal an earlier financial remedies order of 10 July 2024. On 9 September 2024, Mr Nick Goodwin KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, confirmed the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over both child arrangements and financial matters.

On 6 August 2024 the Applicant converted to Islam. One week or so later she issued proceedings in the Sharia courts of Dubai.

On 30 September 2024 the Applicant issued an application before the Dubai Personal Status Court and sought a schooling order. The Applicant issued applications for full custody of H and financial provision before the Dubai courts on 16 October 2024. The Respondent contested jurisdiction. On 29 October the Dubai judge refused the schooling order for want of jurisdiction. On 11 November 2024 the Dubai court dismissed the custody application made by the Applicant given the English orders.

A Dubai judge ordered the Applicant to hand over H to the Respondent. On 12 November 2024 a plain clothes police officer attended the Applicant’s home to try to hand H over to her father. This was not successful. H was handed over to the Respondent on 25 November 2024, following a further court ordered handover with a “settlement supervisor”.

On 26 November 2024 the Applicant applied for a travel ban to prevent H being taken out of the UAE. Around this time the Applicant’s lawyers acting under her power of attorney raised within proceedings allegations that the Respondent had harassed her for being a Muslim. I add that during her oral evidence she accepted the Respondent had never harassed for her being a Muslim. Her evidence was that her lawyers in Dubai acting under her power of attorney did this on their own account. On 27 November 2024, the father took H from the UAE to Turkey and onwards to the UK. On 28 November 2024 the Respondent issued a C2 application for leave to relocate. On the same day the Applicant petitioned the Dubai courts to freeze the Respondent’s bank accounts and assets, to issue a further travel ban and to seek the arrest of the Respondent.

On 3 December 2024 HHJ Jacklin KC heard an ex parte application and suspended the child arrangements order made by HHJ Oliver. She made a lives with order for H to reside with the Respondent and made a prohibited steps order against the Applicant.

The Applicant issued a C2 application for the summary return of H to Dubai on 10 December 2024. On 11 December 2024 HHJ Jacklin KC heard an inter partes hearing and determined to continue all the earlierorders made at the without notice hearing. The Applicant sought to appeal this order on 31 December 2024. On 19 February 2025 Peel J refused permission to appeal. The Applicant’s summary return application was listed for a half day directions hearing. This took place before me on 13 March 2025. I heard a pre-trial review on 12 May 2025. At both of these hearings I ordered significantly more contact between the Applicant and H. The Respondent rather belatedly accepted the need for this at each hearing. The Applicant was unable to leave Dubai because of the paternal grandmother’s criminal complaint about her. Very limited indirect contact took place between the Applicant and H. H was harmed by being denied time with her mother during this period.

Meanwhile in Dubai, a judge ordered the return of H to Dubai on 12 December 2024. The Respondent challenged the Dubai court’s jurisdiction. On 19 December 2024 the prosecutor filed a criminal case against the Respondent for kidnapping H and not enrolling her in school. On 25 December 2024 the Respondent was summoned to court to answer the criminal complaints. He did not attend. The Applicant gave evidence against him. On 15 January 2025 the Dubai court convicted the Respondent and sentenced him to two months imprisonment and deportation. A Dubai certificate dated 27 January 2025 noted the criminal complaint against the paternal grandmother remained under investigation. The travel ban made earlier against the Applicant in Dubai was finally discharged on 2 May 2025. This was no doubt delayed as the paternal grandmother has appealed an earlier dismissal of the criminal complaint she made against the Applicant.

At the May 2025 summary return hearing I heard evidence from the single joint experts in Dubai family and criminal law, briefly from the Respondent, solely on the topic of his future plans and from Ms Demery (as Cafcass had been asked to provide a short report). I refused the Applicant’s application for a summary return of H to Dubai. I was initially minded to transfer the matter back to the Central Family Court but ultimately determined to reserve the matter to provide for judicial continuity. I listed the matter for a prompt full welfare determination and joined H as a party. I ordered a significant amount of in person and indirect Zoom contact between H and her mother.

The Applicant and the Respondent have both filed detailed witness statements. I do not intend any discourtesy in not setting out their evidence in any detail. It is mostly opinion evidence setting out their views on H’s best interests and the arrangements for her care in Dubai and England respectively. I am not conducting fact finding in respect of disputed allegations and the evidence is not materially disputed. The parents simply disagree with each other’s welfare cases. There is no need to set out in this judgment the detail of their opinions on where H’s best interests lie. Each has predictably set out a halcyon picture of her future life on Dubai and England respectively.

The Applicant’s August witness statement sets out her welfare case for H’s return to Dubai (in addition to her earlier May 2025 statement for the summary return hearing). Her case is predicated on the basis she and her then partner would provide a stable home for H in Dubai. After filing this witness statement her relationship with her partner ended. Her 12 September 2025 witness statement is the material one. She sets out her income and expenses, her social network and the circumstances for H’s return to Dubai. She says she cannot afford to return to England and “scrimp and save on a very small salary”. She states she has filed the waiver in relation to the Respondent’s Dubai criminal conviction and hopes he will return to Dubai to permit the resumption of shared care there.

The Respondent written evidence sets out why H should remain in his care. His last witness statement sets out his efforts to resolve his legal difficulties in Dubai. He recorded a Zoom call between H, the Applicant and her the maternal Grandfather which took place on 31 July 2025. This was the day when Ms Demery met H. The Applicant was determined to find out directly from H, what she told Ms Demery. The transcript reveals that H was trying not to engage in conversation and was distracted. The Applicant tells her: “Sit up and talk to mummy. Sit up and talk to mummy.” The Applicant and the Grandfather repeatedly badger H to tell them what she told Ms Demery. H tries to deflect the questions but they persist in their cross-examination of her. She tells them she told Ms Demery she wished for fairies and that mummy was beautiful. But the Applicant and the Grandfather persist in their questioning of her when it readily apparent H does not want to talk about her conversation with Ms Demery. H tells them they will find out when they receive Ms Demery’s report. Any yet, they persist. They tell H she will not see her mummy anymore. The Grandfather states: “You won’t see mummy anymore, you don’t love mummy anymore.” The Applicant then asks H whether “so you don’t love mummy anymore. You don’t want to see mummy anymore.” H replies: “I love mummy but I just want to stay here [her home in England].” The Grandfather then says: “She [H] doesn’t love mummy anymore. She doesn’t miss mummy anymore. You don’t love mummy”. After she’s further questioned by the Applicant, the Grandfather then says: “You broke mummy’s heart” and then goes on to ask whether H does not want her mummy anymore. The transcript continues:

Both the Applicant and Respondent gave evidence in court. Both displayed emotion and were upset. Both had a tendency to give rambling answers. They both talked at length about the litigation with little focus on their daughter. It is not necessary to set out their oral evidence, whilst I permitted extensive cross-examination of each, very little turned on their answers.

The paternal grandmother provided one witness statement in which she sets out the background to her involvement in H’s care, living with the Respondent in Dubai until November 2024, thereafter in England. She gave brief overall evidence. She was overwhelmed twice and the court took brief adjournments. Ms Kirby asked her about whether she had been cruel to the Applicant and whether she had used police procedures in Dubai trap the mother there after November 2024. She denied this.

Dipali Maldonado and Mohamed Al Marzouqui were instructed as the ‘single’ joint experts on Family and Criminal Law in the Emirate of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. They have produced two reports – one dated 19 May 2025 (for the summary return hearing) and an addendum report dated 29 August 2025. The salient information and conclusions set out in those reports can be summarised. Since 2020, there have been 14 concluded and ongoing cases in the Dubai Court. 12 of the cases have been initiated by the mother and the remaining two by the father. In May they reported there were two ongoing matters relating to H, one in the criminal court and the other in the enforcement court initiated by the Applicant. Due to the Applicant’s religion, if the parties were to engage in Court proceedings in Dubai, the starting point would be the Sharia legal framework. The parties could agree to apply the law of their home country, England and Wales, or the 2022 non-Muslim Law.

The impact of the father’s conviction for kidnapping in the UAE and the potential finding of the English court that he abducted H would mean that in Dubai, he could be subject to imprisonment or a fine between 5,000 and 50,000 Dirhams. This penalty will not be automatically applied unless the non-offending parent applies to impose sanctions.

Either parent could apply to the Dubai court for the variation of the 50:50 custody order, which has been registered and enforced by the Dubai court. While the court in Dubai can grant an application for permanent relocation in practice, the court will likely permit travel abroad and refrain from an order which would be against the wishes of one parent. It is possible to appeal the final order of the English or Dubai Court within 30 days of final judgment. The court in Dubai can also consider an application where there is a substantial change in circumstances, or any facts that may impact the child’s welfare, to consider varying the final order or alternatively, to make new orders that are in the best interests of the child as at the relevant time. A UK court order is not automatically enforceable in the UAE; it needs a formal recognition and execution under the UAE Civil Procedure Law and to meet the necessary conditions prescribed therein. Even with a UK order, UAE courts can impose travel bans if either parent makes an application. The parties can seek enforcement of an English order or undertakings in the UAE under Articles 222 to 226 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Law No. 42 of 2022). Undertakings made to the English courts are not directly enforceable in the UAE unless they are incorporated into a final court order; and capable of execution under UAE law pursuant to Article 222 of Federal Decree by Law No. 42 of 2022 Promulgating the Civil Procedure Code.

The Respondent has currently been convicted in absentia for the kidnapping of H. To challenge this conviction, the father must either travel to the UAE and submit an objection or appoint a licensed UAE lawyer to act on his behalf to file an objection. A parent’s criminal conviction can lead the court in Dubai to revoke or restrict a parent’s custody rights.However, in all cases, the best interest of the child remains the court’s overriding consideration. The Applicant’s withdrawal of her complaint of kidnapping in relation to the father does not nullify the conviction retrospectively but suspends the sentence; this would remove the risk of arrest attached to the outstanding conviction and could lead to the suspension or cancellation of the deportation order. Until formal cancellation or suspension of the deportation order is granted and communicated to the immigration authorities in the UAE, the risk of the father’s arrest and subsequent deportation remains.

Importantly, I note the Respondent failed to follow this advice and did not submit an objection, even after the Applicant filed her waiver. He followed his own legal advice and carried out some form of other procedure he determined was appropriate. But it has not regularised his situation in Dubai and he is not prepared to return to ‘face the music’. I made clear to the Respondent at an earlier hearing he should do so, to permit this court to choose where would be best for H to live.

The Guardian has filed two reports in these proceedings: the first is dated 19 May 2025 and the second is dated 26 September 2025. In her first report the Guardian indicates that she was unable to make any final recommendations in the absence of the report in relation to Dubai law. However, the Guardian did express significant concerns as to the way H’s welfare was being negatively impacted by the ongoing dispute between the parents. The Guardian observed that:

Further the Guardian concluded that:

“That said in my assessment the biggest risk factor for H is the animosity

and ongoing litigation over every aspect of her care. Her living arrangements

need to be settled and comprehensive orders, once again of how she safely

spends time with her parents, free from unpleasant scenes. While neither

parent is seeking to resile from some form of shared care there are ongoing

proceedings in the Dubai courts where I understand [mother] has applied

for sole custody.”

In her second report, the Guardian remained concerned as to the impact on H of being exposed to her parents’ conflictual relationship:

“As I said in my previous report what is of upmost importance to H is that her parents are friends and are equally involved in her life. Neither parent can at this stage contemplate moving country to enable this to be realised, which is to her detriment.

There is no ideal solution for H. This harmful litigation needs to stop and for H to enjoy her childhood. She requires her parents to not be

preoccupied with obtaining evidence against each other to use in court

proceedings. She is only five years old, and they have many years of parenting

ahead and they need to find a mechanism to communicate in their daughter’s

best interests as her needs will change over time.”

The Guardian’s overall recommendation is as follows:

“This is a finely balanced matter. There are losses for H in whatever

decision this court makes, the most important of all the loss of one parent in her

day-to-day life. However, there would be more losses for her should she return

to Dubai. She would be in a different country, not only from her father, but also

her maternal and paternal family. She would be reliant upon her mother, albeit

with good friends, for all her needs to be met, at a time when her mother is

adjusting to a dramatic change in her own circumstances and hopes for the

future.

On the finest of margins, I would respectfully recommend that H remains living in the United Kingdom.”

The Guardian makes the following additional recommendations:

“In my view the legal framework around H should best reflect the equal

role that each parent plays in her life, now and moving forward, wherever she

lives.

The zoom contact to remain at six times each week, with scope for her to be

allowed to speak to her mother at other times should H so wish.

In the circumstances of this case and without yet having the benefit of hearing the parent’s evidence it is difficult to be prescriptive about arrangements for H around time spent with her mother and where that would be given the

complexities surrounding travel in and out of Dubai by various family members.

Direct time with H and her mother in Dubai is dependent on the ability or

willingness of her parents to travel between the two countries. Clearly once

H is a little older, she could travel as an unaccompanied minor.

That H continues to spend time with her maternal relatives one weekend

each month.

In the future both parents should be allowed to travel overseas with H

during holiday periods. It is important that the travel itinerary and contact details

is provided to the other parent.

There should be scope to alternate Christmas, and for H to spend around

two thirds of the school holidays with her mother. She spent last Christmas with

her father and if possible, she could spend this Christmas with her mother. On

balance, it would be best for this to be spent in the United Kingdom as the first

Christmas after final hearing.

That [father] provides regular updates on H’s progress, health, and

wellbeing to [mother] and [mother] is allowed to have information about

H’s school and medical professionals so that she can contact them if she

so wishes.

Wherever H lives, the parents will need a means of communication, there

are applications other than Our Family Wizard, suggested by [mother], and

others which do not attract a cost such as https://www.appclose.com

Consideration to be given to parents giving some undertakings, to not apply for travel bans on each other, H or extended family or to make without notice ex-parte applications to either the English or Dubai courts.”

Ms Kirby filed a detailed skeleton argument which I have considered carefully. Her overall case on behalf of the Applicant is that the Respondent is dishonest and has played the English legal system to coercively control the Applicant and to exclude her from H’s life. She submits that judges have been fooled all along by this manipulative father. She submits he routinely files dishonest evidence, makes inappropriate without notice applications and has failed to pay maintenance. She was highly critical of the manner in which the Respondent ended the relationship with the Applicant. Her closing submissions on behalf of the Applicant (direct quotations are italicised) said inter alia:

Mr Basi submits on behalf of the Respondent there is a risk of litigation in Dubai and that the Applicant repeatedly ignored Hemain injunctions in Dubai and converted to Islam. He says the Respondent followed orders and only raised litigation to enforce orders, aside from the abduction. He agreed with a section 91 (14) order and accepts the travel ban for 2 years. He submitted H’s best interests are clearly met by remaining in her current home and school.

Miss Renton submits on behalf of H that this case is hugely sad and depressing; amounts to a highly damaging web of litigation which has blighted H’s childhood. Ms Demery is appalled by both parents’ conduct. They have lost focus on H and her welfare and have caused her emotional harm. The parents are mired in the past and they both lack insight on the impact of their behaviour on H. The closing submissions illustrate that point. Miss Renton (rightly) characterised Ms Kiby’s closing submissions as amounting to a “wildly out of time appeal”. H needs stability and security and needs a relationship with both parents and that is more likely to happen if H remains in England and she has more to lose in Dubai. The Guardian has real concerns about the weaponisation of the Dubai courts and the local police complaint process. The Guardian was very worried about the criminal complaints and counter complaints, the travel bans and the involvement of the Sharia courts. Ms Demery has no reassurance that the Applicant would not take steps in Dubai to take control of H’s life and there is a real risk of the Applicant retaining H in Dubai.

All parties accepted this court has jurisdiction. I accept, on the basis of the parties’ agreed note of the law on jurisdiction, that I have jurisdiction to determine the two applications before the court. H was habitually resident in Dubai in November 2024. However, the parties accept there is also jurisdiction in England and Wales and on forum conveniens principles, this court should exercise its jurisdiction. They refer me to the decision of MacDonald J in AB v EM (Jurisdiction: Foreign Custody Order) [2020] EWHC 549 (Fam), [2020] 2 FLR 107 at [37] which applies Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, [1986] 3 WLR 972 to the context of family justice. Further reference to establish the parties’ agreement to this court’s jurisdiction is made by reference to the decision of Williams J inRe K (A Child: Stranding Forum Conveniens: Anti-Suit Injunction) [2019] EWHC 466, [2019] 2 FLR 406, at 35 (iii).

All parties also agreed the test was best interests and the application of the welfare checklist.

There are two options: H resides with her father in England and spends time with her mother; or H resides with her mother in Dubai and spends time with her father.

A powerful factor in the welfare analysis is the need to firmly end the litigation. No party (rightly) opposed this. As Ms Demery said in evidence, H cannot enjoy time with her parents because they use that time to gather evidence against the other parent. There are many examples of this. Perhaps the most egregious is the way H was spoken to by her mother and her maternal grandfather on 31 July 2025. This was appalling behaviour. The grandfather was correct to write to the court and apologise for his behaviour. It must never happen again. Ongoing litigation increases the risk of this type of behaviour. In my judgement, this is sufficiently harmful to pass the threshold of placing H at risk of future harm. H’s welfare requires the court to take steps to end the litigation. I have more confidence that this will happen if H remains in England in circumstances where I can make a section 91 (14) order and reserve any application for permission to myself. If she were in Dubai, this court may retain jurisdiction but there would be a significant risk of litigation before the Dubai courts applying either Sharia or other law. There is the additional risk of police complaints and travel bans which this family have also weaponised. That risk is too high.

I accept the permanence of the relocation to England will seriously impair H’s relationship with the Applicant, given I also accept the Respondent and his family cannot fully promote H’s relationship with her mother. However, I am driven to the conclusion that this emotional damage to H is less harmful than the damage that would be caused by ongoing litigation. I accept the significance of this conclusion. The litigation history and the 31 July 20025 Zoom call transcript persuade me. What else has been said to H by her parents and her family that is not known and with what frequency?

The orders I make will be supported by penal notices. Non-compliance will lead to significant consequences. Any application to vary the orders made will require permission. In this way the parents will be forced to move on from their five year battle. This undignified fight over H has transformed the parties from being caring and loving parents, exercising the responsibility of parenting, to becoming tactical litigants focused on gathering evidence to put into witness statements for the next hearing. An H focused example of this is the Respondent’s tactic to buy H a cat just after the May 2025 hearing in the full knowledge, H may have been returned to Dubai four months later, in circumstances where he had no idea if the cat could accompany her. This manoeuvring is the opposite of the exercise of parental responsibility. It is driven by the litigation and has caused emotional harm to H and continues to place her at risk of emotional harm.

The Respondent has deliberately failed to resolve his outstanding difficulties in Dubai. Ms Kirby is highly critical of this, with some force. However, it assumes less significance in the welfare analysis, because I am satisfied that even if he could return to Dubai without any criminal (either by way of financial of custodial penalties) or immigration consequences (deportation or via restrictions) I would not order H’s return to Dubai. As I have set out above, it runs the high risk of litigation and/or travel bans and/or police complaints which this court cannot control. Hemain injunctions did not prevent Dubai orders. I therefore do not need to deal in any detail with the thoroughness of the Respondent’s compliance with the advice of the single joint expert. I think Ms Kirby’s submission is correct, namely that the Respondent has taken steps to create the impression of attempts to overturn the orders against him but has not in substance properly carried out the steps that the single joint expert advised. For the avoidance of doubt, if I concluded H’s welfare was better advanced living in Dubai than England, I would have had little difficulty ordering that, even if it meant the Respondent had to return to Dubai and subject himself to arrest and a brief period of imprisonment until such time as he regularised his situation with the Applicant’s waiver, as I think would be likely to happen. The single joint expert’s evidence was fairly clear on this.

Next, I do not consider there is force in Ms Kirby’s submission that the Respondent is not serious about residing with H in the south if England and his settlement here is a temporary one until such time as he can obtain effective full custody, end the proceedings and then move back somewhere to the Middle East. Ms Kirby seeks to underpin this submission with reference to: (i) the lack of evidence that the Respondent’s partner can work in the United Kingdom; (ii) his temporary living quarters: a cottage in his mother’s garden; (iii) some links with his former Dubai employer; (iv) the much smaller salary he now receives compared to his Dubai salary and (v) his and his family’s longstanding links to the Middle East. I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to make good these submissions. The persistence of Ms Kirby’s cross-examination did not yield results. The child arrangements order will provide for H to reside with her father (not her grandmother) in England. Should the Respondent wish to relocate he will first need to persuade me to grant him permission to litigate which will require some considerable persuasion, given his evidence at this trial. In any event his counsel accepted a two year prohibition on H travelling outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. H is not to be left in the care of her grandparents whilst the Respondent embarks on a new career in the Middle East. If he were to do so, he would have committed a serious perjury in the witness box.

I accept Ms Kirby’s submission that the Respondent abducted H in November 2024. I accept the submission that the court should not reward the abducting parent. However, the Applicant has no proper case to put on this issue given her own conduct. She effectively abducted H from May to November 2024 by preventing all in person contact between H and the Respondent in Dubai. She was forced by the Dubai court orders and fines and eventually the involvement of the police to hand H over to her father. She retained H in breach of orders which led to this court making collection orders. She sought a travel ban to prevent H leaving Dubai whilst at the same time as she sought (contrary to orders of this court) a full custody order from the Sharia courts. Simultaneously her lawyers, acting under her power of attorney, accused the Respondent of pursuing a course of harassment against her because of her Muslim faith. Seen in this context the Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s removal of H from Dubai without her consent adds up to little. Furthermore, HHJ Jacklin held an inter partes hearing shortly thereafter and gave the Respondent authority for H to reside with him in England. An order in respect of which this court refused permission to appeal. I suspect the Respondent had been giving some thought to plan H’s removal but this must be seen in the context of the Applicant’s conduct from May 2024.

I am also concerned about the stability of the Applicant’s arrangements in Dubai. Until August her case was a welfare analysis predicated on her shared life with her then partner and his two young children, who were said to be close to the H. That welfare context evaporated all of a sudden in August. Instead H would return to her mother’s one bedroom apartment in Dubai. The Applicant works very hard. I ordered she could have three weeks of contact with H in September but she was unable to take this up because of her work. She accepted in evidence she has missed evening Zoom calls because of work related commitments and dinners. She would hope to retain a former maid/nanny to look after H but she could not be sure of that and was clear that her driver and a maid would carry out caring responsibilities for H. This potential arrangement does not match H’s current emotionally richer and caring environment.

Whilst H is only 5 years old, I have regard to her wishes and feelings. The Guardian is “not convinced that (H’s) wishes and feelings in terms of where she would like to live are authentically her own.” H set out views to Ms Demery:

“She told me that she loves everything about living in the United Kingdom and prefers living in England compared to Dubai. However, she said “I miss my mummy, [and the Applicant’s former partners’ children].” She added “My mummy wants me and my daddy to go back to Dubai, but not my nanny. I want to stay here”

“I explored this further with her. She said she loves the garden, which now has the Tree House with monkey bars, the school, and her friends. She spoke about her dancing show. She told me that she wishes to be a fairy. She reiterated that she wants to remain here inEngland”

Miss Renton submits these views are not authentically her own. I agree.

H has resided in England for almost 11 months. The Respondent’s evidence demonstrates how H’s physical and educational needs are met. H has benefitted from being in full time education, establishing a clear routine, enhancing her learning and development and making friends, receiving a positive school report. I also accept there are some questions about the capacity of either parent to afford school fees for H in the UAE, which could create disruption to her attainment relative to the stability afforded by her current school. I was also unimpressed by the Applicant’s attempts to shut the father out from communication with the Applicant’s chosen school in Dubai, before H had even begun, if she had returned. I accept Miss Renton’s concerns in this regard as expressed in her cross-examination of the Applicant.

Ms Demery considers H is settled in England. Ms Demery has concerns about stability in Dubai as there is no family unit and the Applicant has a demanding job. I reject the submission Ms Demery has carried out a superficial analysis - quite the opposite.

In England, H has many opportunities for socialisation and further educational development outside the classroom through extra-curricular activities. This is supported by the Ms Demery’s analysis: “(H) enjoys many activities and has settled well at school. She has a large extended family, both maternal and paternal in the United Kingdom, with whom she is enjoying spending time.”

In relation to the impact of a change of circumstances, I accept that uprooting H from the stability and consistency she is afforded at this time would have a detrimental impact on all aspects of her wellbeing. Ms Demery considers H has more to lose in Dubai.

I accept Ms Demery’s conclusion that “there would be more losses for her should she return to Dubai. She would be in a different country, not only from her father, but also her maternal and paternal family. She would be reliant upon her mother, albeit with good friends, for all her needs to be met, at a time when her mother is adjusting to a dramatic change in her own circumstances and hopes for the future.”

I do not accept the Applicant’s case on the welfare checklist. First her written submission that I should consider H’s ascertainable wishes in May does not engage with H’s later expressed wishes or what she said in the Zoom call. In any event, as I have set out above, it is not safe to place weight on her wishes and feelings, given how she has been manipulated. Secondly, I do not accept the Applicant’s submission that education in Dubai is better than England. This is an assertion without any evidential support. Thirdly, I do not accept the written case that the paternal family cannot meet H’s physical needs. Ms Demery rejected that given her own observations. Her investigations and in particular her contact with H’s school. The Applicant’s focus on the May 2024 altercation between her and the paternal grandmother demonstrates her distinct lack of focus on H’s welfare needs in October 2025. There is some merit in raising concerns about H’s dual heritage but there is no evidence that her father, his family or her current school are incapable of promoting this important part of her identity.

Ms Kirby submits in writing that: “[H] should be in Dubai and she should be seeing each of her parents regularly” but nowhere do her submissions engage with the reality that in Dubai the Applicant subjected H to serious emotional harm from May 2024 by denying her any in person time with her father or his family until the police had to get involved and force her to literally hand H over, whilst simultaneously she sought a full custody order before the Sharia courts. I would readily accept 50:50 care as per HHJ Oliver’s order in Dubai, but the reality is that wholly failed and the Applicant needs to accept her considerable share of the responsibility for that. Instead her litigation strategy at this hearing has been to relitigate the events of May 2024 and the calumny of orders and hearing that have taken since then.

Furthermore, I cannot overlook the Applicant’s conduct on the 31 July 2025 Zoom call. I have very considerable concern about the damage being done to H by such conduct and am troubled by how many more similar conversations have taken place.

For these reasons I refuse the Applicant’s application for H to relocate to Dubai. I grant the Respondent’s application for leave for H to remain in England and to attend her current primary school. Whilst this is an interference in the Applicant’s Article 8 ECHR right to respect for her family life, such an order is entirely proportionate, necessary and in accordance with the law to protect H from on-going emotional harm.

In terms of the section 8, 1989 Act ‘spends time with’ order, the following is in H’s best interests:

H is not to permitted to leave the jurisdiction of England Wales for two years. This is because of the high risk of some form of onward abduction or yet further attempt to embark upon fresh litigation or relocation. I accept it is an infringement and will impact on family holidays, but such a measure is necessary to protect H from the risk of emotional harm, which her family visit on her. I will make a section 91 (14) 1989 Act order until March 2027. No party opposed this.

I thank all counsel and solicitors for their expert assistance.