HF, KF and LF (Children) (Habitual Residence), Re

The court is concerned with three children, HF, a 7 year old girl, KF, a 5 year old boy and LF, a 4 year old girl. The children are currently in Dubai with their father FF. These proceedings have been brought by MF, the mother of the children, who seeks the summary return of the children to England and Wales pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The proceedings have been listed before me to determine the preliminary of issue of the court’s jurisdiction. It is the father’s case that the children are (and were at the commencement of these proceedings) habitually resident outside England and Wales. Before me the mother was represented by Mr Mark Jarman KC and Mr Mani Singh Basi of counsel; the father by Mr Sharaz Ahmed and Ms Judy Ko of counsel.

The proceedings were commenced by way of a C66 Application form issued by the mother’s solicitors on 2 September 2024. At that time the mother was in Pakistan and she claimed that she had been stranded there by the father. Her position, as set out in the witness statement of her solicitor in support of the application was that she did not know where the children were. The C66 application form indicates that the mother wished to make an application under the inherent jurisdiction for the return of the children to England and Wales. However, she first wanted assistance to return to the jurisdiction herself and indicated that she did not dare make an application for the return of the children until she herself was back in the UK, as she was in fear of her life and had no access to funds in Pakistan.

The mother returned to the UK in early 2025 and made a further C2 application within these proceedings seeking return orders for the children on 20 February 2025. A location order was made by Ms K Gollop KC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge on 5 March 2025. The father’s brother and his wife were subsequently required to attend court to be cross-examined on the whereabouts of the children and father and attended before Trowell J for this purpose on 1 April 2025. The father was served in April 2025, and on 22 May 2025 Peel J listed the issues of jurisdiction and forum conveniens for a hearing before me in October.

Although there is a lot of dispute as to the factual detail in this matter, the basic chronology of events is relatively clear.

The father is a dual British and Pakistani national who was born and grew up in the UK. The mother is a Pakistani national who grew up in that country. The parties married in 2016 and the mother travelled to the UK on a spousal visa. All three children were born in the UK and have dual British and Pakistani nationality.

The father is a businessman and in 2023 was working in Pakistan, whilst the mother and children were in England. It is common ground that at that time the children were habitually resident in England and Wales. They had lived here all of their lives; the eldest child was attending school and the middle child was in nursery. The youngest child was due to start nursery in September 2025.

The father was offered a job in Dubai and in June 2023 the mother and children travelled to Dubai to meet the father there. There is a dispute between the parents as to why they did so. The mother’s case is that this was for a short visit; the father’s case is that this was intended to be a permanent relocation. It is common ground that return air tickets were purchased, with the mother and children being due to return to the UK on 24 July; they travelled only with limited possessions and nothing was said to the eldest child’s school about her being permanently withdrawn. The father’s explanation for the purchase of return tickets is that they wanted to see whether the children could adjust to the heat and climate in Dubai.

No permanent accommodation for the mother and children had been arranged and they stayed in a hotel for 3 weeks. After 3 weeks they moved into a rental apartment which the father rented with his brother.

Between 9 and 15 July 2023 the father travelled to Pakistan, either to conclude some business matters there (his case) or to obtain the release of a car which he had shipped from the UK (the mother’s case). On 24 July 2023, the date upon which they were due to return to the UK, the mother and children flew instead to Pakistan. The father’s account is that the mother wanted to attend a family wedding in Pakistan and asked for the father to arrange for her and the children to travel there. The mother’s case is that she needed to leave Dubai as her visitors’ visa only entitled her to stay for one month, she needed to travel abroad to renew it. The mother suggested to the father that she simply go to Oman for a day in order to renew her visa, but the father insisted that she and the children travel to Pakistan as they had Pakistani passports. On this occasion only single-way tickets were purchased. The father’s explanation for this was that he couldn’t afford a return fare.

On arrival in Pakistan the mother stayed with her parents in Islamabad. Her case is that from this date onwards she and the children were effectively stranded in Pakistan. Although, at this stage, they retained their travel documents, the mother had no independent income and was unable to afford the cost of further travel, either to Dubai or to England. The father’s case is that he was expecting the mother and children to be in a position to return to Dubai within a couple of weeks, but the mother kept delaying the date of her return.

On 12 September 2023 the father wrote a letter to the school in England that the eldest child had been attending as follows:

“I am writing to you regarding my daughter [HF]… I myself have been in Pakistan for a few months as I was considering moving to Pakistan permanently. [HF] joined me a few weeks ago from Dubai and after living here for a while I have made the decision that me and my family will be living in Pakistan permanently for now.”

This letter is inconsistent with the father’s current case in a number of respects. At this stage he had been living in Dubai (and not Pakistan) for a number of months. His case is that it was the parents’ intention for the family to live permanently in Dubai (and not Pakistan), and that the mother and children were only in Pakistan, temporarily, in order to attend a family wedding. Cross-examined about the letter by Mr Jarman, the father blamed a typing error for the incorrect statement in the letter that “[HF] joined me a few weeks ago from Dubai”. The letter also gives an address in Pakistan where the children were said to be living. This is an address in the father’s family village some hours drive from Islamabad and not the address of the maternal grandparents where the mother and children were actually living.

The letter was not sent directly to the school, but was instead forwarded to the school by the father’s sister-in-law (his brother’s wife) under cover of an email. That message is also instructive as it states that the child had originally gone abroad “due to a family emergency”, an explanation inconsistent with the accounts now provided to the court by both parents.

The father’s case is that at this stage he was still expecting the mother and children to return to Dubai and that it was the mother who was trying to persuade him to come to Pakistan. The mother’s case is that she was pressing the father to arrange for their return to the UK. She did this via text messages which she says have not survived as the father took her phone in June 2024

In any event, the mother and children remained in Pakistan, and the father remained in Dubai. None of the children were going to school at this time. The mother’s case being that she was surviving on very limited funds. The father’s evidence was that he understood that the mother had arranged for a lady to come and provide the children with home tuition.

There is conflicting evidence about how much money the father sent to the mother during this period. The father has provided evidence of some payments, totalling around £850, but claims to have sent significantly more. This is denied by the mother who claims that she was reliant on financial assistance from her own father, the children’s paternal grandfather, during this period.

The father is critical of the care that the mother was providing to the children during this period (although he was not there to witness it), alleging that the mother beat the children and that they were mistreated and malnourished. He exhibits a photograph of one of the children having a skin rash. The mother accepts that one of the children had a rash (although denies this was anything to do with lack of care) and claims that the reasons that the father has these photographs is that she sent them to him when begging him to return them to the UK. The mother denies hitting the children; the father has exhibited some texts from 2021 in which the mother appears to claim that she had hit one of the children.

The father’s uncle, to whom he was very close, became ill and in around December 2023 the father travelled from Dubai to the UK to spend time with him. The father has exhibited a message from around this time in which the mother asks him to come to Pakistan and in which he calls her “a bitch and ungrateful person”. The uncle eventually died in March 2024 and around the same time, the father travelled to Pakistan via Dubai and was united with the mother and children. The family moved to a house belonging to the father’s brother around 45-50 minutes’ drive from the maternal grandparents’ home. Around this time, the mother’s case is that the father took charge of her and the children’s passports and identity documents.

Matters came to a head in around May 2024. The father claims that he was approached by an unknown man in the street in Islamabad who claimed to have had a relationship with the mother and who showed him inappropriate pictures of the mother. The father described this man as looking “very threatening” and claimed that “he had something in his pocket and I thought he might injure me”. He therefore came back home, packed and drove the mother and children to a property in his family village away from Islamabad. The mother considers that the account of the father being accosted in the street is pure invention, but agrees that she and the children were suddenly uprooted from Islamabad and taken to a remote village. There is a dispute as to whether the father spent time with the mother and children in the village. However, on 1 June 2024 he took the mother to her aunt’s house in Islamabad, leaving her there without the children, and then on 2 June 2024 he took the children to Dubai. The father’s case is that the mother had consented to this trip. The mother’s position is that she had discussed the eldest child travelling with the father to Dubai for Eid, but did not know he planned to take all three children.

1 June 2024 marks the separation of the mother from the children. She has not seen them in person since that date. The mother’s case is that the father also took her phone at this time and that she is therefore unable to access earlier text messages that they had exchanged.

The children’s passports show that they entered Dubai on 2 June 2024. They then left Dubai for a day trip to Oman on 3 July 2024 to renew their visas. They finally left Dubai on 20 July 2024 returning to Pakistan.

The father has exhibited a series of text messages from around this time which he claims are from the mother. They appear to have been sent from an account that does not belong to the mother and they very are different in tone to many of the other messages between the parents I have seen. In them the mother ostensibly states that she and the father had been happy living in Islamabad and enjoins the father:

“Look after my daughters very well and my son too. If you ever want to let me see them then let me meet them.”

In contrast to the tone of this apparent message, the mother contacted the UK Police to try to trace the children. In an email dated 17 July she alleged that the father had left her, taking the children without her consent, and that he had taken her passport and identity documents. The police established that the father and children were not in the UK and informed the mother that she should contact the authorities in either Pakistan or Dubai. The police succeeded in making contact with the father and he provided them with the address in Dubai where he and the children were staying. It appears that this information was passed to the mother. However, the father and children returned to Pakistan a couple of days later and travelled back to the father’s family village.

The father alleges that whilst he and the children were in Dubai, the mother also sent a number of texts to him threatening to break into his house in Islamabad and to cause damage, and followed through on these threats turning it “upside down”. The mother accepts sending the texts, but denies actually breaking in. I have not seen any police report to corroborate the father’s allegation that there was an actual burglary.

There was a text exchange on 1 July 2024 in which the father appears to have been abusive to the mother, calling her a “liar” and saying “Try ur best I will make you and your family pay with your life’s”. A further exchange (the date of which is unclear, but would seem to have been around this time) states as follows:

The mother was aware no later than 25 July 2024 that the father was in Pakistan. However, her case is that she was not aware that the children had also returned to Pakistan, and she did not know where they were. The father accepts that he did not tell her that the children had returned to Pakistan, because he was afraid of what she might do.

In an early witness statement dated 12 June 2025, the father had asserted that the children had been settled in Dubai since June 2024. He now accepts that this was not the case and the children returned to Pakistan with him on 20 July 2024.

Thereafter there was no direct contact between the parents, save for a few messages. The father alleges that he was told by the maternal grandfather that the mother and her family did not want anything to do with the children. This is vehemently denied by the mother.

In August 2024 the father’s sister-in-law travelled from the UK, leaving her own four children in the UK. Her evidence was that by this point the children were living in her husband’s property in Islamabad and that she saw then every day. The mother’s evidence was that she was told that the father not in Islamabad, but was rather in the family village. She believes that the children are likely to have been with him.

At around the same time the mother sought the help of her local MP in the UK to effect her return to the UK to enable her to take steps to recover the children from the father.

Text messages between the parents show the mother wanting to see the children; saying that she will only answer a question by the father if he lets her meet the children and stating that she missed the children.

The mother was granted a new UK visa and returned to the UK in January 2025.

The father claims that the eldest daughter was enrolled in school in Islamabad between 16 September 2024 and 20 January 2025 and had exhibited a school leaving certificate to this effect,

On 13 January 2025 the father and children travelled to Dubai and have been living there ever since. The paternal aunt followed them to Dubai in February 2025. The eldest child started school in Dubai on 25 August 2025 and the middle child is due to start in January. The father’s evidence is that he has a 2 year investor visa to live in Dubai and the children have residence permits as his dependants. He states that in Dubai the children attend mosque regularly, enjoy activities such as swimming, horse riding or trampolining and have a large friendship group. He describes them as settled there.

There was no real dispute between the parties on the applicable law. The jurisdiction of the High Court to make return orders either under its inherent jurisdiction or under the Children Act 1989 is governed by section 2 of the Family Law Act 1986 which (so far as is relevant to these proceedings) provides that the Court will have jurisdiction to do so if it has jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention. The jurisdictional position under the 1996 Hague Convention is governed by Articles 5 and 7 which provide as follows:

Neither Dubai nor Pakistan are parties to the 1996 Hague Convention and Mr Jarman KC drew my attention to the decision of Mr David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the case of SA v AA [2023] EWHC 2016 (Fam) which addresses the issue of whether Art. 7 is limited in its application to jurisdictional disputes between contracting states to the 1996 Convention. This is an issue on which different puisne judges of this Division have expressed different views (see the summary of cases given by Mr Lock KC at paras [57] to [84] in SAS v AA). At [83] to [84] the deputy judge held as follows:

“[83]…the rules in the Hague Convention seek to set the rules for contracting states to apply both in cases where a child is unlawfully retained in a contracting state and in a non-contracting state. There are occasions when the text uses the word “Contracting State” and other occasions when it uses “non-Contracting State”. It thus seems to me that where the text uses the word “state”, it should be interpreted as meaning both a contracting state or a non-contracting state unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary. In contrast to the words of the EU Regulation 10, there is nothing in article 7 of the Hague Convention which limits its application to a child which has been unlawfully retained in a contracting state. Applying that approach, the High Court is required to apply the rules in article 7 because it covers a child which has been taken to any other state, regardless as to whether that state is a contracting state or not.

[84] I also bear in mind that this is a provision which extends the ability of the court to take protective measures to protect children in the event that they are taken from one country to another in breach of the rights of the other parent. There are agreed minimum standards to protect children in contracting states but, by definition, there are no such agreed minimum standards to protect children in states which are not signatories to the convention. I thus find it difficult to envisage any policy justification for limiting the powers of the courts in contracting states to take action to protect children when they are wrongly taken from one country with agreed standards to another that has no such agreed standards in breach of the rights of the other parent.”

For the mother, Mr Jarman argued that I should follow the approach taken by Mr Lock KC in relation to the interpretation of Art. 7; for the father Mr Ahmed did not seek to press an alternative construction of the provision on me. The reasons given by Mr Lock KC, set out above, seem to me to be compelling and in the absence of any argument by Mr Ahmed that I am required to take a different course, I find that Art. 7 is applicable to circumstances where a child has been wrongly removed to a non-contracting state.

The combined effect of these matters is that this court will have jurisdiction to make orders in respect of these children:

The law on the issue of habitual residence itself was not in dispute and I was referred to the most recent restatement of the key principles set out by Moylan LJ in Re F (A Child)(Habitual Residence) [2025] EWCA Civ 911 at paragraph [58]:

“The determination of habitual residence is not a formulaic exercise because it requires a broad consideration of the child's and the family's circumstances and because different factors will be present in different cases with the same factor being more significant in one case than another. Accordingly, as was said in the case of HR, at [54], "guidance provided in the context of one case may be transposed to another case only with caution". With those caveats, I set out the following elements (which are not intended to be exclusive) drawn from the cases:

(a)

"The identification of a child's habitual residence is overarchingly a question of fact": Re B, at [46]. It is "focussed on the situation of the child": Re A, at 54(v) and Re R, at [17]. It is an issue of fact which requires the court to undertake a sufficient global analysis of all the relevant factors. There is an open-ended, not a closed, list of potentially relevant factors;

(b)

As set out, for example, in Proceedings brought by HR, at [41]: "In addition to the physical presence of the child in the territory of a [member] state, other factors must be chosen which are capable of showing that that presence is not in any way temporary or intermittent";

(c)

Factors of relevance, as set out in Proceedings brought by HR, at [43], and reflected in many other domestic cases, include: "the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the child's stay in the territory of the different [member] states concerned, the place and conditions of the child's attendance at school, and the family and social relationships of the child in those member states";

(d)

The intentions of the parents are also a relevant factor and there is no "rule" that one parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child: Re R, at [17];

(e)

As set out in Re R, at [16], it is "the stability of the residence that is important, not whether it is of a permanent character" but there "is no requirement that the child should have been resident in the country in question for a particular period of time" because habitual residence can be acquired quickly: e.g. A v A, at [44];

(f)

The "degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment in the country in question" is relevant, Re R, at [17]. It is clear that "full integration" is not required, "Re B (SC)", at [39], but only a degree sufficient to support the conclusion, when added to the other relevant factors, that the child is habitually resident in the relevant state;

(g)

The relevant factors will reflect the age of the child (see Mercredi v Chaffe [2012] Fam 22, at [53]-[55]; A v A, at [54(vi], and Re LC, at [35]). Accordingly, "The social and family environment of an infant or young child is shared with those (whether parents or others) on whom he is dependent. Hence it is necessary to assess the integration of that person or persons in the social and family environment of the country concerned": Re A, at 54(vi);

(h)

The court is considering the connections between the child and the country or countries concerned: A v A, at [80(ii)]; Re B (SC), at [42]; and Proceedings brought by HR, at [43]. This is a comparative analysis as referred to, for example, in Re M, at [60]; Re B (EWCA), at [86]; and Re A, at [46]. As observed by Black LJ in Re J, I repeat:

"What is important is that the judge demonstrates sufficiently that he or she has had in mind the factors in the old and new lives of the child, and the family, which might have a bearing on this particular child's habitual residence."

An example of this is seen in Re B (SC) in which Lord Wilson, at [49]-[50], referred to the factors which pointed to the child having "achieved the requisite degree of disengagement from her English environment" and those which pointed to the child having "achieved the requisite degree of integration in the environment in Pakistan".

I heard oral evidence from both of the parents. I have not been able to accept significant parts of the father’s evidence. I am satisfied that he has provided a number of different accounts at different times that simply do not fit in with the other established facts. For example, it is quite clear that the letter that he sent to the eldest child’s school in September 2023 was untrue in a number of material respects. There was no plan on either parent’s case that the family should move to Pakistan permanently, and the father’s statement that he was living in Pakistan at that time was also untrue. The father’s witness statement of 14 May 2025 claimed that the children had been living in Dubai since June 2024. Again, this is plainly untrue; although the children stayed in Dubai for seven weeks from 2 June to 20 July 2024, they then returned to Pakistan for a further 6 months. Other elements of the father’s account (such as his being approached by a stranger in the street and shown inappropriate photographs of his wife) are in my view inherently implausible.

Although there were elements of the mother’s oral evidence which went beyond her witness statements, and there were issues upon which her evidence changed (for example whether the father broke her phone or took it), I consider that the general account provided by the mother broadly represents what actually took place. I am satisfied that when the mother and children travelled to Dubai, there was no plan that this should be anything other than a short holiday. Return flights to the UK were booked; no notice was given to the eldest child’s school in the UK that she would be leaving permanently; there is no evidence of anyone saying a final goodbye to friends or family; possessions were left behind in the UK; and no permanent accommodation had been arranged in Dubai for when the mother and children arrived.

Once in Dubai, there were clearly discussions between the parents that led to the mother and children traveling on to Pakistan. This trip appears to me to have fulfilled a number of objectives; the mother and children needed to leave Dubai in order to renew their visitor visas; and it also enabled the mother to attend a family wedding in Pakistan. However, I am satisfied that it was not the intention of either parent at this stage that there should be a permanent relocation to Pakistan and that as a result of (a) the father only purchasing one-way tickets for the mother and children and (b) the lack of any financial independence on the part of the mother, upon arrival in Pakistan the mother and children were effectively stranded there. The fact that the father then deliberately sent a misleading letter to the eldest child’s school about the family’s plan and his own whereabouts in my view supports this conclusion.

There then followed a period of 8 months during which the mother and children were living with her parents. I have very little information about their lives during this period. However, I am satisfied that the mother was left in financial difficulties by the father. Had he provided funds beyond the £850 odd that he has evidenced, it would have been easy for him to provide details of this. I am also satisfied that none of the children were attending school during this period.

The father arrived in Pakistan in March 2025, and the family initially moved to his brother’s house in Islamabad for a period of six weeks or so. I accept the mother’s evidence that at this stage the father took control of her and the children’s travel and identity documents. There was clearly an event that took place around the start of May which effectively caused a breakdown in the relationship between the parties. However, I do not accept the father’s account of being approached in the street by a stranger which seems to me to be highly implausible set of events. Thereafter the children spent around a month living in the father’s village, before being taken by him to Dubai.

I accept the mother’s account that she did not want the father to take the children to Dubai for Eid. Again, I know nothing of the lives of the children during the seven weeks or so that they spent in Dubai, save that by this point they had been separated from their primary carer, their mother, who had been the constant presence in their lives up to that point.

The children were returned to Pakistan on 20 July 2024. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the father decided to return to Pakistan within a couple of days of being contacted by the UK police and consider that it is likely that he did so to ensure that the mother did not know where the children were. Yet again I know virtually nothing about the children’s lived experience during this further period in Pakistan. It seems likely that on their return they returned to live in the father’s village for a number of weeks. The father’s case is that they then returned to Islamabad around the beginning of September, and in support of this he relies on a text message in which he claims that the mother says that she had seen him with the children in Islamabad. The message does not in fact bear the construction that the father seeks to place on it. The only other evidence that they were in Islamabad during this period is (a) the oral evidence of the father’s sister-in-law to Trowell J, although she was unable to give the court the address of where she and the children were staying and (b) the school attendance certificate provided by the father in respect of the eldest child, although I note that this certificate shows the child attending school in Pakistan for a week after the date that she had actually left with her father and siblings for Dubai in January 2025.

It is only for the period from January 2025 onwards, after the children had left in Pakistan and moved to Dubai, that I have been provided with any details of the lives.

The father seeks to blame the mother for the difficulties that she had in returning to the UK. He argues that she could have renewed her UK visa electronically and therefore was not stranded in Pakistan. I am not in a position to decide whether the mother could have obtained a visa earlier. However, I am satisfied from the steps taken by the mother in contacting the UK police and her UK MP following her separation from the children, that the mother was (a) actively seeking to locate the children; (b) desperately wanting to resume contact with them and (c) doing what she could with the resources and information available to her to achieve these goals. The reality of the mother’s situation at this time is that the father had taken her travel documents, separated her from her children; and was refusing to tell her where they were or allow her contact with them.

Mr Jarman’s primary argument is that the children remained habitually resident in England and Wales as at September 2024 when these proceedings were issued (alternatively they were still habitually resident here as at February 2025 when the mother’s C2 application seeking the return of the children was issued). He has a secondary argument based on Art. 7 of the 1996 Convention that the children were wrongly removed from their mother on or about 2 June 2024 and / or wrongly retained in Pakistan from about 20 July 2024. At these dates the children were habitually resident in England and Wales, and therefore, even if there was a subsequent change in habitual residence the English court still has jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 7 of the 1996 Convention.

Mr Ahmed’s primary position is that the relevant date for establishing jurisdiction under the Convention is the date of the mother’s C2 application in February 2025 and that the children had acquired a habitual residence in Dubai (or alternatively Pakistan) prior to this date. In relation to Art. 7 he argues that the children had acquired habitual residence in Pakistan prior to being taken to Dubai and that mother had in any event acquiesced in the children remaining in Dubai in June 2024. The burden of proof in establishing a change in the children’s habitual residence lies on the father (SA v AA at [89]).

Taking all matters into account, I am satisfied that this court has jurisdiction to make orders in respect of these children for the following reasons.

First, I am not satisfied that any point between July 2023 and January 2025 the children became habitually resident in either Dubai or Pakistan. As I have described above, I have been provided with virtually no evidence of the children’s lives or their experience during this period. I start from the premise that these are children who prior to June 2023 had grown up in England and Wales, with the eldest child attending school here. There was no doubt that they were socially, educationally, emotionally and physically integrated into life in this jurisdiction. On leaving the UK in June 2023 they travelled for one month to Dubai for what I have found was intended to be a holiday of finite duration. They spent most of that month in Dubai living in a hotel. There is no evidence whatsoever that they achieved any level of integration in that jurisdiction during that time, and I do not consider that there was any change in habitual residence during this period.

They then travelled with their mother to Pakistan. During this next period they lived in three different properties, first staying with their maternal grandparents until March 2024, then for around six weeks at the father’s apartment in Islamabad, then for a further month in the father’s village. During this period they were living in financially precarious circumstances, and had been, as I have found, effectively stranded by the actions of the father. The majority of their possessions remained in England. Neither parent intended that the children should settle in Pakistan. The children were not attending school and I have been provided with no evidence that they had any friends there, or enjoyed wider activities that would have provided them with some degree of integration in life in Pakistan. The mother’s evidence was that the children did not like Pakistani food, and that she spent a significant part of her limited funds providing them with English food to eat. Whilst I accept that this was a relatively lengthy period of time – some 10 and half months - the nature of the children’s position in Pakistan, having been stranded there by the father’s actions and the lack of any evidence of wider integration during this period means that I am not satisfied that they acquired habitual residence in Pakistan during this period.

The children then spent seven weeks with their father in Dubai. By now they had been separated from their primary carer. There had clearly been some discussion between the parents as to the eldest child travelling to Dubai with the father for Eid and I am not satisfied that in relation to her, the travel to Dubai amounted to a wrongful removal (although I consider that it did in relation to the other two children). However, I am satisfied that any consent given by the mother was for a short trip and that there would have been a wrongful retention by no later than 1 July 2024. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that by early July the mother was making investigations through the UK police to try to establish the children’s whereabouts. Thereafter, I accept Mr Jarman’s argument that all three children had been wrongfully retained by the father by this date. Again, I know nothing of the children’s experience of this time in Dubai, and I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they had any level of integration in that jurisdiction during this time.

Mr Ahmed sought to argue that the mother acquiesced in the retention of the children in Dubai, pointing to certain text messages sent by the mother suggesting the father should put the children into school in Dubai. Given that the mother was actively trying to locate the children, involving the UK police in her search in July 2025, and contacting her UK MP to assist, I cannot accept that the mother in any way acquiesced in the children’s retention by the father.

The children returned to Pakistan on 20 July 2024 and remained there for a further six months. During this period they remained separated from their primary carer and appear to have been moved around between Islamabad and the father’s village. Again, and despite their being in the father’s care during this time, I have virtually no evidence whatsoever as to their experience of life in Pakistan. The only evidence that I have pointing towards a degree of integration during this period is the school leaving certificate exhibited by the father which suggests that the eldest child began school on 16 September 2025. However, the mother is sceptical of the validity of this document, and I note that it purports to show the child attending the school until 20 January 2025 despite the father and children having left Pakistan permanently on 13 January 2025. I therefore find that the children did not acquire habitual residence in Pakistan during this period either.

The children arrived again in Dubai on 13 January 2025. I have rather more evidence about their lives during this stay in Dubai, and it is likely that at some point during the course of 2025 they will have acquired habitual residence in that jurisdiction. However, the key date is the 20^th February when the mother‘s C2 application was issued. As at that date the children had only been in Dubai for five weeks, they had not started school. In the absence of any evidence as to the state of their integration in Dubai as at this date, I am not satisfied that they would yet have acquired habitual residence there.

To summarise, I am specifically concerned with habitual residence on three dates:

So far as jurisdiction under Art. 5 of the 1996 Convention is concerned, I am satisfied that it is the date of the commencement of the proceedings which is the relevant date (see London Borough of Hackney v P & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 1213). In this case, this is the date of the issue of the mother’s C66 application form. That is the specific form prescribed for applications under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, and the relief sought and evidence in support made clear that the ultimate remedy that the mother was seeking in these proceedings was an order under the inherent jurisdiction for the return of the children to England and Wales. Although the mother also sought additional orders to enable her to safely to return to England herself before pursuing return orders, I am satisfied that this court has been seized of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction relating to these children since 2 September 2024 and, as of that date, the children remained habitually resident in England and Wales. Even if I am wrong on this point, and the relevant date is the date of the C2 application on 20 February 2025, I am still satisfied that the children were habitually resident in England and Wales as of that date.

Even if I am wrong in these conclusions, I am also satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction under Art 7 of the 1996 Convention. The children were wrongfully retained by the father in breach of the mother’s rights of custody no later than 1 July 2024 and as of that date they were still habitually resident in England and Wales. The mother has not acquiesced in their retention; and these proceedings were brought within 12 months of the date of retention (whether the relevant date for the commencement of proceedings is 2 September 2024 or 20 February 2025).

Having determined that the Court has jurisdiction, I must still consider whether this is the most appropriate forum for the dispute to be determined. The father argues that it is not, and that the matter should be determined in Dubai where the children are currently situated.

I am able to deal with this point relatively briefly. I am satisfied that England and Wales is the appropriate forum for the determination of this dispute and have had regard to the list of factors identified by Williams J in Re K (A Child) (Stranding: Forum Conveniens: anti-suit Injunction) [2019] 4 WLR 38 at [35]. The burden is on the father to establish that Dubai is clearly the convenient forum for the determination of this dispute. However, he has not provided any evidence as to the Dubai legal system, its approach to the determination of return applications in respect of foreign families of the Muslim faith, or the availability of legal representation or legal aid there. Although the children are currently living in Dubai and are now habitually resident there, the English courts are already seized of these proceedings and have been for over a year. By contrast no proceedings have yet been issued in Dubai. As the hearing before me has demonstrated, both parties are able to participate fully in the legal process in England and Wales and have legal representation available to them. The mother is here, and the father is a British national and therefore able to freely enter the UK (by contrast the mother would appear to be limited to spending no more than 1 month at a time in Dubai). This is a case where the children had lived in England for their whole lives prior to the events that have led to these proceedings and they have strong connections with this jurisdiction.

Taking all of these matters into account I am not satisfied that the father has established that Dubai would clearly be the appropriate forum for this dispute. Indeed, I am satisfied that England and Wales is the appropriate forum and therefore decline to stay these proceedings on forum conveniens grounds.

I will therefore invite the parties to agree a draft directions order to take this matter forward for the determination of the mother’s application. If agreement is not possible the matter must be relisted for a directions hearing.