HF, KF and LF (No 2)(Children; Inherent Jurisdiction; Return Order), Re [2026] EWHC 1035 (Fam) (01 May 2026)

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1035 (Fam) Case No: FD24P00397 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 THE 1996 HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, RECOGNITION, ENFORCEMENT AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN THE MATTER OF HF, KF and LF Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 1 May 2026 B e f o r e : MR DAVID REES KC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) (In Private) ____________________ - and - ____________________ Mani Singh Basi (instructed by Ben Hoare Bell LLP) for the Applicant Sharaz Ahmed (instructed by Belmont Law) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 28-30 April 2026 ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED ____________________ Crown Copyright © Mr David Rees KC: Introduction I am concerned with three children HF who is 8 years old, KF who is 6 and LF who is 5. 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. I have already handed down one judgment in this matter, Re HF, KF and LF (Children)(Habitual Residence) [2025] EWHC 3306 (Fam) , in which I determined that the court had jurisdiction to determine this matter ("the Jurisdiction Judgment"). I will not repeat in any great detail the facts that I recited and the conclusions that I reached in the Jurisdiction Judgment, and this judgment should be considered as one with my earlier one. However, by way of summary and to aid understanding of this judgment. a. The father is a dual British and Pakistani national who was born and grew up in the UK. The mother is a Pakistani national. b. The children were all born in the UK and are dual British and UK nationals. Prior to June 2023 they had lived all of their lives in the UK; HF was attending primary school and KF was in nursery. c. The father worked in Pakistan whilst the mother and children lived in the UK. In 2023 he obtained an offer of work in Dubai. In June 2023 the mother and children travelled to Dubai. The father's case was that this was intended to be a permanent relocation, but I found, as set out in the Jurisdiction Judgment (para [41]) that this was only intended to be a short holiday. d. A few weeks later the mother and children flew on to Pakistan. The father had bought them one way tickets and I found in the Jurisdiction Judgment that the father effectively stranded them there (para [42]). During this period they lived with the maternal grandparents. e. In March 2024 the father joined them in Pakistan and took control of the mother's and children's identity documents. In May 2024 the parents' relationship broke down, and the father took the children to his family's village before taking them to Dubai for Eid. The mother had consented to HF undertaking a short trip to Dubai, but no to the other two children travelling. f. This was the last time that the mother saw the children in person. Up until then she had been the children's primary carer and a constant presence in their lives. g. I found that there had been a wrongful removal of KF and LF on or about 2 June 2024 and a wrongful retention of HF by no later than 1 July 2024 (para [55]). h. The father returned the children to Pakistan on 20 July 2024 without informing the mother. They remained separated from the mother but spent time in Islamabad and the father's village. On 13 January 2025 they were taken by the father to Dubai where they have lived ever since. i. These proceedings were issued on 2 September 2024, although the mother initially focussed on relief which would enable her to return from Pakistan to the UK. Having returned to this country she issued a C2 application on 20 February 2025 seeking orders for the summary return of the children. j. There were then delays whilst the father and children were located. k. The question of the court's jurisdiction was listed as a preliminary issue and came before me for determination at a hearing in October 2025 and by a judgment which I handed down on 17 December 2025 I held that the court had jurisdiction to hear these proceedings. l. The father, whilst making clear that he wishes to show no disrespect to the court, has made it clear that he does not accept my factual findings in the Jurisdiction Judgment. Both parties are represented. The mother is represented by Mr Mani Singh Basi, and the father by Mr Sharaz Ahmed, and I am grateful to them both for their assistance. The issue I have to determine is whether I should now order the return of these three children to England from Dubai. In order to determine this issue I have heard oral evidence from both parents and have received a report from Ms Kathleen Cull-Fitzpatrick, a Cafcass officer who has met with the children remotely and observed contact between them and their mother. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick attended court to give evidence and be cross-examined on behalf of both parents on the first day of the trial. The Children's Current Lives As I have already indicated, the children have been living in Dubai since January 2025, so they have now been there for around 15 months. They live in an apartment with their father, their paternal grandmother and the father's eldest brother. The father describes them being raised in a "vibrant, happy and loving family environment". The father's evidence is that HF is currently in Year 3 at an English language private school in Dubai, which follows a British curriculum. His evidence is that she is doing well academically and enjoys going to school. However, he has not exhibited any evidence from the school as to HF's attendance or performance and a request from Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick to the school for information about HF has gone unanswered. The father also informed the court that since the recent war between the USA and Iran began on 28 February 2026, all schooling in Dubai has switched to online teaching. The father's witness statement of 12 February 2026 states that KF also attends the same school as HF and that he is "settled, happy and benefits from being in the same education environment as his sister". This aspect of the father's statement proved to be misleading. In his oral evidence, he explained that KF had in fact attended the school for an induction period in February of perhaps 7 days. He was then due to start properly in April, although the switch to online teaching as a result of the US-Iran war has meant that he has not yet started. Given that KF's attendance at school has been limited to a total of seven days, I do not accept the father's evidence that he is "settled, happy and benefits from being in the same education environment as his sister". The father's evidence is that LF, who is now 5 is attending a playgroup for three hours a day during the week, although this too has recently been curtailed by the outbreak of the war. His evidence is that she is particularly attached to the father and paternal grandmother. Outside of their schooling, the father gave evidence of the children enjoying activities and clubs. The children's contact with their mother is limited to three sessions of video-contact per week which has been taking place for nearly a year pursuant to orders of this court. It is common ground between the parents that these sessions are currently not going well, although they dispute where the blame for this lies. The mother filed a witness statement dated 26 January 2026 in which she stated that contact was not happening at all. This was almost immediately recognised to be an error. At a directions hearing on 28 January, Mr Basi told me that following an opportunity to discuss matters with the mother through an interpreter, his client's case was that contact was taking place but that there were issues about the length and quality of that contact. A second statement from the mother, filed shortly before the final hearing stated that there was a period when there was no contact which was then reinstated following a letter from her solicitors to those acting for the father. The mother's statements have been prepared with the assistance of an interpreter, and whilst Mr Ahmed sought to make something (both in cross-examination and in his final submissions) of the mother's initial statement that contact was not happening, I am satisfied that this was simply an error, quickly corrected, and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. So far as contact is concerned the position appears to be: a. Until the Jurisdiction Judgment was handed down in December 2025, the father would place the calls for contact between the children and the mother. He stopped doing so once the Jurisdiction Judgment had been handed down, leaving it to the mother to call the children. The father says that this change took place as a result of a request from the children. b. The mother says that contact normally only lasts for a few minutes. Often the children will hang up; resulting in the mother calling two or three times until no one answers. c. The children are distracted and do not engage with the calls. d. The mother says that this is because of actions by the father which have given the children a negative view of her. e. In total there have been over a hundred contact sessions. f. There are accusations by the father that the mother has missed a number of sessions, and by the mother that the father ceased contact for a time. However, the number of missed sessions (around 10 or so) appears to be relatively modest when compared to the number of sessions that have taken place. g. Many of the contact sessions have been recorded by one or both parents, notwithstanding the lack of any court permission to do so. The parents make allegations and counter-allegations about the reasons for the children's non-engagement. The mother blames the father for failing to promote communication between her and the children. She suggested that the father has been present in the room (but off camera) whilst the sessions have been taking place, the implication being that he has influenced the children. Mr Basi also pointed to the various court orders for contact which require the paternal grandmother to arrange for the children to have an activity to do. In contrast the father's case is that the children are given an activity such as a game or colouring. From his perspective, it is the mother who is failing to engage with the contact sessions by making no prior plan for the sessions. Much was also made by the father of two contact sessions to which I will return later, one where the mother fell asleep during contact, and one where the mother had another child with her. He alleges that the mother has effectively set the contact sessions up to fail. The fact that the mother has persisted in the contact sessions, notwithstanding their obvious unsatisfactory nature, is in my view clear evidence that she wishes them to work and wants to maintain what is her only current link with her children. The Law There was no disagreement between the parties on the law. Although, the application is described as a "summary return", this is a case where the court has considerable evidence about the children's lives, including an assessment from a Cafcass officer and a previous fact-finding exercise as part of the Jurisdiction Judgment. In those circumstances, it is common ground at the Bar that the court must apply a welfare analysis on the basis of the factors identified at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. Mr Basi also argues that this is a case to which Practice Direction 12J applies. He points to my finding in the Jurisdiction Judgment that the father effectively stranded the mother and children in Pakistan and notes that paragraph 2B of that Practice Direction provides that domestic abuse includes transnational marriage abandonment". The consequence of this finding is that under paragraph 33 of the Practice Direction the court must: "consider- (a) whether it would be assisted by any social work, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment (including an expert safety and risk assessment) of any party or the child and if so (subject to any necessary consent) make directions for such assessment to be undertaken and for the filing of any consequent report…; (b) whether any party should seek advice, treatment or other intervention as a precondition to any child arrangements order being made, and may (with the consent of that party) give directions for such attendance". The Cafcass Evidence The children were seen by Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick by video-link on 3 March 2026. She also had an opportunity to speak to the father on that occasion. She met with the mother in person a few days later and then had the opportunity to observe a session of video-contact on 18 March. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick was joined on her call with the children by an Urdu interpreter as both KF and LF preferred to speak in that language. HF spoke in English and Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick described her having a soft Birmingham accent, reflecting the time that she spent in that city before 2023. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick had prepared a welcome letter for the children, although the father had not shared this with the children or previously explained the purpose of the meeting to them. His evidence was that the war had recently begun and that "there was a lot going on". Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick explained the purpose of the meeting to the children herself but described them as looking "bemused". LF spent a limited amount of time on the call once Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick asked the father to leave the room as she wanted to remain with her father. However, Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick records observing an affectionate relationship between LF and HF. In their interview with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick, KF and HF both expressed positive views about living in Dubai and the activities that they do there such as going to the park and the mosque, whilst KF expressed very negative views about living in England, saying that he "hated" it and doesn't like England. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick notes in her report that KF was only three when he left England and that he was unable to explain why he held these negative views. HF did not directly respond to these questions, although Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick records that she looked worried and told her that she did not remember. Neither HF nor KF were able to recall any positive memories about their mother. HF said that she does not like talking to her mother; describing her as being always angry and shouting at them, and that she believed her mother does not like them. KF said that he cuts off the calls with the mother and that she always shouts at him. Asked about how they would feel about living with their mother, KF said that he would be angry and call the police as he wants to stay with his father. He also said that she does not like them and might stab them with a knife. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick asked the children if they had ever seen their mother stab anyone or threaten anyone with a knife and they said that they had not, and KF could not explain why he thought she might do this. He described his mother as "bad" and said that he did not like her. KF also alleged that his maternal grandfather had hit him in the stomach and put a stick in his mouth. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick says that she tried to explore why the children held these beliefs and whether this was information that had been shared with them and HF's response was that they "just know this information". In contrast the children spoke very positively of their father saying that he cares for them and likes them. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick also spent some time with HF alone. She remembered living in England and said that she missed her cousins. She remembers leaving her mother in Pakistan and was unaware at the time that she would not see her again. She told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that she does not want to spend time with her mother because she does not believe her mother cares about her and shouts and lies. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick described HF's body language as being uncomfortable whilst discussing this topic. A contact session between the mother and children was observed by Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick on 18 March 2026. She described KF and LF as being engrossed in an activity and not engaging with the mother. HF told the mother that she did not want to talk to her and that she shouted at them. HF proceeded to read a book, but kept glancing up as the screen whilst the mother sought to engage the children in conversation and said that she missed them to which HF responded "last time you kissed another baby, you have another daughter, you don't like us." It is common ground that this is a reference to an incident when, during a previous contact session, the mother had another child with her. The child is not hers but belonged to another mother living in the shared property in which the mother was at the time staying. That child (who is familiar with the mother, who had from time to time looked after it) wandered into the room where the mother was having a contact session with her own children. The mother picked up the child and kissed it and had it on her lap showing it to her own children. Cross-examined about this incident by Mr Ahmed, both Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick and the mother accepted that it was a misjudgment for the mother to demonstrate affection in this way to another child in front of her own children. Both parents had shared videos of other contact sessions with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick. The father had shared a video in which the mother fell asleep and another in which the children refer to the mother as a liar and as having hit them. In other videos shared by the mother the children can be heard (in Urdu) saying "dad told me not to talk to you" and "I have been told that you [ie the mother] are dirty". There is also a video in which HF can be heard whispering in English "Hi mummy, how are you, I'm good, I still miss you". Although these videos have not been shown to the court, they are referred to in Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's report, and I am satisfied that she has given an accurate account of what she has seen. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick also met with both parents. She considered that some of the accounts provided by the father of his relationship with the mother were contradictory and confusing. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick records the father's views as follows: "[FF] does not accept the findings made by the court. [FF] views [MF] as having consented to the children travelling to Dubai in July 2024 and remaining in his care. [FF] did not recognise the children as having experienced any harm in being separated from [MF], their primary care giver. [FF] attempted to minimise [MF's] role in their life, and he was critical of her parenting. [FF] said that his perception of [MF's] parenting is based upon the information the children shared with him." The father told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that the children did not want to return to live with their mother. Indeed he told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that he had asked them that question directly. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick challenged the appropriateness of the father asking this question of the children given their age, maturity and understanding of the situation, but he did not see any issue with it. The father's position as expressed to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick was that the children were settled in Dubai and should remain living there with him. His view was that the mother could have spent time with them in Dubai and has deliberately chosen not to. He told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that he would only agree to travel with the children to England (if a return were to be ordered by the court) if he had time, but that he was busy working. He told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that he owns a business which involves importing sugar from Brazil and does real estate. In cross-examination he told the court that he is in the import-export business dealing with various commodities and that since the war began he has been primarily dealing in oil. He reiterated in his evidence that he did not have time to accompany the children to England, stressing the need to attend meetings in Dubai in person. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick states that the mother became emotional in her interview when discussing the circumstances of her separation from the children. She complained to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that the father had not promoted any contact between her and the children prior to being ordered to do so by the court and that the contact sessions were becoming progressively worse. The mother also described having experienced domestic abuse at the father's hands. She also described herself as having little autonomy during her previous time with the children in England; they were living with the paternal family and the mother described the paternal grandmother as controlling all aspects of her life. She did however acknowledge that the paternal family had positive relationships with the children. The mother also described her current life in England to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick. She is currently living in a one bed flat supported by a domestic abuse charity. The charity has confirmed that they will provide support to her and to the children if a return is ordered. The mother also confirmed that she would support the children in maintaining a relationship with their father if a return was ordered. She said that she would only feel safe if the children spent time with their father in England as there would be no protective measures in Dubai or Pakistan. She envisaged any initial contact between the father and children in England being supervised, although once the children were settled she considered that it could progress to contact within the community. To obtain a better picture of the support on offer to the mother Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick spoke to her support worker, who confirmed that the family would be supported with a bigger property if the children returned and help would be given in obtaining school placements. Financial support and employment and educational support would also be available. The support worker also told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that the mother was currently undertaking a parenting course and that further courses could be provided depending on the children's needs. The mother is also accessing support through the charity's in-house counsellor and therapy and recreational activities would be available for the children. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's conclusions in her report are grounded in the context of my determination as set out in the Jurisdiction Judgment that the father wrongly retained the children (initially in Dubai and then Pakistan) without the mother's consent. She describes these as actions of the most serious nature and notes that the father "was unable to demonstrate insight or remorse for his actions". She notes that since June 2024 the mother has not been a consistent part of the children's life "which is no fault of her own but a situation and set of circumstances which has been constructed by [the father]". She concludes that the father's own actions in removing and retaining the children is likely to have provoked feelings of confusion and distress for the children. She continues: "Given that [FF] has been unable to demonstrate the necessary insight or remorse, it is unlikely that he is able to support or acknowledge the children's feelings. Growing up in a family system based on deception and false narratives may impact the children's ability to trust their own perceptions and develop genuine intimacy in future relationships." Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick notes that the father has not been proactive in supporting the children's relationship with their mother and does not appear to value her role in their lives. She expresses a concern that should the children remain in Dubai, the father will use the spending time arrangements as a means of continuing to exert power and control and is of the view that the court cannot have any confidence that the relationship between the children and the mother is one that can be promoted by the father. Should a return be ordered, she considers that the children would be returning to a country that is a familiar culture and environment, which would provide a sense of familiarity which would support the children's transition. However, under cross-examination from Mr Ahmed she accepted that KF and LF, who were aged 3 and 2 respectively when they left England would have little memory of their time here. However, the children would be returning to live with the mother who had previously been their primary care giver and who had confirmed that she would support the children's cultural and religious needs and support them in maintaining a safe relationship with their father and paternal family. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick advises that the children may find the transition to life in England difficult. However, she noted that since leaving England in June 2023 they have not experienced an extended period of stability and identifies that the children (and in particular KF and LF) have not established meaningful relationships in Dubai. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick described the mother as "insightful" when discussing the challenges that the children would face and that she had explored this with her support worker. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's recommendation is that the children should be returned to England. She considers that the children's formative years have been very disruptive, and it is important that they can have a secure and definite plan for their future which involves both parents. She acknowledges that this is not in line with the children's wishes, but considers that their age, maturity and understanding means that they do not have the capacity fully to understand the significance of the father's actions and the long term implications of the court's decision. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick recommends a referral to the local authority, as that could play a supporting role in the children's reintroduction to the mother's care, and considers that in any dispute about child arrangements a section 7 report would be advisable, given the mother's allegations of past domestic abuse. If the court were not minded to order a return then Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick recommends that the court should make an order for spending time arrangements to include: a. Video calls between the mother and children 3 times per week. b. The children to travel to England to spend time with their mother at least twice a year (with the father funding and arranging the children's travel). c. That should the mother feel safe travelling to Dubai, additional contact time between the mother and children in that jurisdiction should be agreed. The Parent's Evidence Both parents had filed additional witness statements since I had handed down the Jurisdiction Judgment and they both gave evidence and were cross-examined, in the father's case by video link. It is fair to say that the additional evidence provided by both parents was somewhat limited and did not cover a number of important topics, with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's report covering rather more ground – which is a reason why I have dealt with it at some length in this judgment. Both parents were criticised by the other side for their omissions from their witness statements and exhibits, and to assist the court, I gave both counsel an opportunity to elicit some further details about the parents' circumstances by way of oral evidence in chief. Nonetheless, I should record that the various videos that each side disclosed to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick and to which she makes reference in her report were not disclosed to either the other side or to the court. The mother's evidence confirmed that she had undertaken a number of courses (covering child and adult safeguarding and health and safety) with a view to obtaining employment, although she has not yet obtained a job. She alleged that the father was present, off camera during contact sessions, and also claimed that he had remarried, something she inferred from comments that the children had made about new clothes that they wore in a contact session. Asked why she did not want to travel to Dubai she referred to threats made by the father when she was previously in Pakistan, although she accepted that she would go there if the father ensured that she was safe. Cross-examined by Mr Ahmed she accepted that she had fallen asleep in one contact session and that she shouldn't have kissed the child who appeared in another session in front of her children. However, she denied that she had effectively set up the video contact to fail. Asked about her reasons for not wishing to travel to Dubai she referred to previous threats that she said the father had made whilst in Pakistan. She also raised visa issues as a possible reason, although accepted that she now had indefinite leave to remain in the UK and was free to travel internationally. She denied having hit HF, although struggled to fully explain a text message that she had sent to the father in 2021 in which she stated that she had done so. In his evidence the father gave an explanation for his comment in his witness statement that KF was attending school when this was not the case, and updated the court on the position in Dubai following the start of the US Iran war, which has meant that schooling is now online and that LF is no longer attending playgroup. He gave more detail about the children's lives describing KF playing football and the girls playing netball. He described all three children as being scared of returning to the UK, HF most of all. He said that this case was now affecting their health, with HF having nightmares and screaming a lot and KF getting up in the night unable to sleep but not saying anything. I note (as did Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick in her oral evidence) that the onset of these nightmares appears to have coincided not only with her report but with the start of the US-Iran war. The father said that the children have been seen by a doctor and a report is awaited, but it may be that therapy will be recommended. He indicated that he would be prepared to help with the costs of tickets for the mother to travel to Dubai and denied either having remarried or being present off camera during the video contact sessions between the mother and children. He considered that if the court ordered a return the children would not be in the right emotional place and would feel lost. Cross-examined by Mr Basi he accepted that he had never seen the mother hit the children. He denied that his own actions had caused any damage to the children. Asked about his family he was vague about the circumstances of his siblings in England or the number of children that they had. He explained that he could not return to England for business reasons, as he needed to attend meetings in Dubai. He also indicated that he would not have any accommodation available to him in England. He alleged that the mother had an involvement in an attack on one of his brothers and was criticised for not having provided either the mother or Cafcass with an update about the children's nightmares and for not sharing the Cafcass welcome letter with the children in advance of their meeting with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick. He was unclear about why KF disliked England and denies telling the children not to speak to their mother or calling her "dirty". He denied that he was the one sabotaging contact. The limited nature of both parents' evidence means that the factual findings that I am required to make are more limited than those that I had to make in the Jurisdiction Judgment. There have been aspects of both parents' evidence that I have rejected, and where I have done so I explain this in my analysis below. However, I have accepted the greater part of what both parents have said in their recent evidence. Specifically, I do not accept Mr Ahmed's contention that inconsistencies in the mother's evidence undermine her credibility generally and, as I have already explained, I consider the reference in her statement on 26 January 2026 to contact with the children having ceased to be nothing more than an error in the process of preparing a statement through an interpreter. The Order Sought The mother's case as presented by Mr Basi at the final hearing was that I should order the return of the children to England and Wales. Mr Basi made clear that at this stage the mother is not seeking an order that the children should be immediately returned to her custody, and that if the father chose to accompany the children to England, a return to the mother's custody would be either a matter for agreement or for the court to determine at that stage. However, the father's position is that he cannot return to England even for a short period, and that, therefore, the practical effect of a return order would be that the children would be placed in the mother's immediate custody. Analysis I then turn to consider the welfare of these three children through the prism of the checklist contained at section 1(3) Children Act 1989. In doing so, I make clear that I am starting from the presumption that whatever my decision, it should be the same for all three children. Although some factors may have greater relevance for one or more of the children than for the others, neither party has suggested that I should separate the children and I would not countenance doing so. Either I order the return of all of them or none of them. Wishes and Feelings It is clear from Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's evidence that the children are all expressing a wish to remain with their father in Dubai. There is certainly some evidence that they are settled in that jurisdiction. HF, has been attending school (I do not accept the father's evidence that KF is also settled in school on the basis of a seven day induction period) and I have received evidence about the activities that they enjoy in that jurisdiction. That said, it is surprising that the father has not exhibited any corroborating evidence of their lives in Dubai such as photographs, or school reports. Nor is there any evidence of friendship groups or wider integration into the community there. Although I am satisfied that the children all say they would wish to remain in Dubai, they are all young children. I have to take their age and understanding into account, and I accept Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's conclusion that they do not have the capacity fully to understand the significance of the father's actions and long-term implications of the court's decision. For all of them memories of the time that they have previously spent in England will have faded. HF gave conflicting accounts to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick about whether she could remember her time in England, whilst I am sure that in the case of KF and LF, they may have little recollection of their time here. In those circumstances the vehemence of the views expressed by KF is surprising. Although KF told Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that he hated England, he was not able to articulate any reason to justify this dislike. Prior to moving to Dubai, the children spent a very unsettled period of 18 months moving between Dubai and various locations in Pakistan with changes in their primary carer, and I am sure that the greater stability that they have had during the past 15 months that they have spent in Dubai is one reason why they now wish to remain there. However, as I have found in the Jurisdiction Judgment, the father bears responsibility for the unsettled nature of the children's lives during this period, first effectively stranding the mother and children in Pakistan and then wrongfully removing them from her care and concealing their location from her. Thus, I have to view the children's current wish to remain in Dubai alongside the fact that it arises from the father's wrongful and abusive act in stranding the children and then abducting them from their mother's care. It is in this context that I have also to consider the views that the children shared with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick about their mother. It seems to me concerning that KF and HF were unable to recall any positive memories of their mother, who until June 2024 had been their primary carer. The comments in the videos seen by Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick in which one of the children says that they have been told not to talk to the mother and told that she is "dirty" are strongly suggestive that, despite the father's denials, the children have been exposed to negative conversations about the mother, either from him or from other members of the paternal family with whom they live, and I find as a fact that the children's views of their mother have been influenced by what they have been told or overheard. Likewise, although I am not aware of the full context of the video in which HF whispers "Hi mummy how are you, I'm good, I still miss you" I consider it to be evidence that the children's position is more conflicted than their bald statements to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick would suggest. Physical, Emotional and Educational Needs It would appear that the children's physical needs are being met in Dubai. I am, however, less satisfied that their educational needs are being met. KF is now six and has yet to start school, and LF who is aged five has only been attending playgroup. The outbreak of the US - Iran war is also affecting their education, at least in the short term, with HF's classes going online and the others unable to attend any educational provision. Further, I do not consider that the children's emotional needs are being properly met. I agree with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that the father has no insight into his actions in separating the children from their mother, and that this separation is likely to have provoked feelings of confusion and distress for the children. Indeed, I consider that this separation is likely to be behind the feelings of anger and resentment towards their mother that the children are currently expressing, highlighted by their reaction to the mother's (unwise) decision to show affection to another child during one of her video calls with the children. Likewise, the father appears to have failed to have provided proper support to the children in relation to the Cafcass enquiry. He did not share the welcome letter with the children in advance of their meeting with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick. Whilst I appreciate that this coincided with the outbreak of the war and the fact that "there were other things going on", I still consider it to demonstrate a lack of awareness on his part of the children's needs. I am also concerned about the level of detail that the father may have shared with the children about Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's report, if as he suggested it is the source of HF's and KF's recent nightmares (although the evidence on this point was confusing and it appears that the nightmares may have begun prior to the report being provided to the parties). The current video-contact that is taking place between the children and the mother is not meeting the children's needs or promoting their relationship. Although each parent blames the other in this respect, it seems to me that the problem is more deep-rooted than an argument about who should be instigating activities for the children to undertake during the call. The father's actions in separating the children from their mother have fractured the relationship between them and I have little confidence that video-contact by itself will make much difference to that position. I have already rejected the father's contention that the mother has set the video contact up to fail. Her persistence with the contact in such unpromising circumstances (there have been more than 100 sessions), demonstrates her commitment to this process. However, it seems to me that the children will need to spend a significant time with their mother and have the benefit of professional assistance for the damage that the father's actions have caused to the relationship between the children and their mother to be repaired. The Effect of a Change in Circumstances Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick recognises, and I accept, that all three children may find any transition to life in England difficult. Although there will be, particularly in HF's case, a degree of familiarity with England, the other two children (who were aged 3 and 2 when they left this country) may have little memory of the time that they have spent here. They are of course, all familiar with their mother, who was a constant presence and their primary carer throughout their lives until the father removed them from her care in June 2024, but as I have already found, the father's actions have clearly damaged the trust that the children have in their mother and their relationship with her. If I order a return then careful work will need to be carried out with these children, although I am satisfied that through the auspices of the charity that is currently supporting the mother and through a referral to the local authority appropriate support will be made available. For the mother, Mr Basi also referred to the network of paternal relatives that the children have in this jurisdiction, noting HF's comment to Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick that she misses her cousins. As I explored with Mr Basi during the hearing, I consider that this submission needs to be treated with some caution. The mother is currently living at a protected address that has not been disclosed to the father or his family. Contact between the children and the paternal family would be likely to lead to that address becoming known, and therefore careful consideration would need to be given to such contact taking place. I cannot assume that a return to this country would automatically also lead to renewed contact with the wider paternal family. Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick was clear that the children need a relationship with both of their parents. There is no bar on the father travelling to England to spend time with them. He is a British citizen and his job means that he would have the means to travel. The father however puts his job forward as a reason why he cannot travel, even for a limited period in order to return the children to England. He explained that he has meetings in Dubai which means he cannot be away even for a short period. This seems to me to be improbable, and I have little doubt that the father could, if he so wished, make time to travel to England to spend time with his children. The mother has made clear that if the children are returned to England, she recognises the importance of the children maintaining a relationship with their father and I accept her evidence that she will support this if the children are returned to her care. The father reverses this argument, arguing that the mother can travel to Dubai to see the children. Hitherto she has been wary about doing so, although she accepted in her evidence that she could do so if the father could ensure her safety there. However, I do not consider that the positions of the two parents are equivalent. Unlike the father the mother is not currently in employment and is in no position to fund flights herself or to pay for accommodation in Dubai. Although the charity that supports her has offered to assist with the costs of a flight to return the children, there is no evidence that they would assist with the costs of the mother visiting Dubai. The mother would also require a visa to travel to Dubai. Having regard to the findings that I have already made in the Jurisdiction Judgment, the father has previously used access to money, access to travel documents, and access to the children as mechanisms to exert control over the mother, and given this history I entirely understand why the mother has been wary of travelling to Dubai to visit the children. Further protection to give her an assurance that she would be able to visit the children without interference from the father might be obtained by way of undertakings from the father that could be recorded in an order of this court. However, I am conscious that if I permit the children to remain in Dubai, they will become habitually resident there (if they have not already become so) and this court's jurisdiction will cease. I have no evidence whatsoever as to the extent to which undertakings to this court could be given effect in Dubai in such circumstances. In short, given the father's history of exerting control over the mother, I am not satisfied on the evidence that there are appropriate protective measures that could be put in place to enable her to visit the children in that jurisdiction. Age, Sex, Background and Other Characteristics The children are still young. HF is 8, KF 6 and LF 5. The paternal grandmother provides a female presence in the household in Dubai and the father's evidence is that she is responsible for bathing the girls. However, I am in no doubt from Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's report that the absence of their mother from the children's lives for nearly two years has had a profound effect upon them which needs now to be addressed. Harm The children have suffered harm at their father's hands. I have no doubt about that. The father does not see his actions in this way, but his decision to remove the children from their mother's care has impacted the children in the way that I have described in this judgment. Unless careful steps are now taken to repair this damaged relationship, there is in my view a risk of lifelong harm to the children. As Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick noted in her report, growing up in a family system based on deception and false narratives may impact the children's ability to trust their own perceptions and develop genuine intimacy in future relationships. The father argues that the children are at risk of harm at the mother's hands and points to the texts sent by the mother in August 2021 where she told the father than she had hit HF. I was not convinced by the mother's explanation for this text and it does seem to me that on the balance of probabilities the mother may have hit HF on this occasion. However, I note that it was some five years ago at a time when she was coping with three children all under the age of 4 whilst the father was living abroad. I know nothing else about the circumstances in which this message was sent, and do not, on the basis of this single message, consider that the children are likely to be at risk of harm if returned to the mother's care. In any event time has moved on. The children are now older, the mother has significant support from an appropriate charity and she has been undergoing parenting classes and child safeguarding classes. The father also argues that the allegations that KF has made about the maternal grandfather punching him in the stomach and putting a stick in his mouth demonstrate that the mother is unable to properly protect the children. Again, I have no further information about this allegation, although the maternal grandfather is in Pakistan and will not have immediate access to the children if they return to England. In any event I consider that the support available to the mother and the steps that she has been taking to educate herself mean that there is no risk of immediate harm to the children in the mother's care. Where the risk of harm does arise is in relation to the children's response to a return order being made. I accept that these proceedings appear to have had an impact in some form on HF and KF, through for example their recent nightmares, although I am concerned that this may have been exacerbated by the father sharing more information about Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's report with them than may have been appropriate. As I have already discussed they are likely to find a transition to life in England difficult, although I accept that this is capable of being reduced through the support that I am satisfied will be available to the children from their mother, the local authority and third sector agencies. That said, in terms of balancing the potential harm of the options before me, I consider that any harm that may arise from a return order, is more than outweighed by the harm they will continue to suffer if such an order is not made. In this context the father may have a role to play in reducing the impact of a return order on the children. As I have already explained, the mother does not seek an order for the immediate return of the children to her care, and would be content in the first instance with the father returning the children to England, and with them remaining in his day to day care whilst steps were taken to reintroduce the children to her either by agreement or under child arrangement orders. Certainly, it seems to me that any harm arising from a sudden return to England could be ameliorated by the father assisting in a transition to the mother's care in this way. Whilst I accept that the father's job in Dubai means that he cannot remain in England with the children indefinitely, his assertion that his work is such that he cannot come here at all, even for a period to help the children transition to the mother's care is unconvincing and in my view is an attempt to exert control over the mother and the court. Capabilities of the Parents In terms of the capabilities of the parents to meet the children's needs, I consider that the mother has this capability. She was the children's primary carer until June 2024 and even if she has had moments when she has found it hard to cope in the past (such as the August 2021 incident when she said that she had hit HF) I consider that the support available to her and the steps that she has taken to educate herself mean that she is able to meet the children's needs. On one level the father is also able to meet their needs, at least for so long as the paternal grandmother is willing to assist him with childcare. However, as I have already explained I consider that his lack of insight into the effect that his actions have had on the children means that he is currently unable fully to meet their emotional needs. Available Powers Given that the children are currently outside the jurisdiction, the power immediately available to the court (and the one that the mother asks the court to exercise) is its power to order their return to England. I have already discussed above the lack of evidence as to how any alternative order permitting the mother to spend time with the children in Dubai could be enforced. Conclusions Taking all of these factors into account, I agree with Ms Cull-Fitzpatrick's conclusion, and I consider that the welfare of these children requires me to order their return to England pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. Mr Basi asks for an order that the father cause or effect the return of the children to England within 28 days of my order and I consider that that is an appropriate period of time. I also consider that there should be a referral to the relevant local authority. Whilst I cannot order the father to return with them, I consider that if he were able to do so and to remain with them, even for a limited period of time, to enable a transition into the mother's care to be undertaken in a supported way, that would be extremely beneficial to the children. I would urge him to reconsider his position on this issue. If the father were to return permanently, then the arrangements for the children in this jurisdiction would, as Mr Basi accepts, need to be resolved either by agreement or through a child arrangements order. In reaching my conclusion I have, as Mr Basi argued I should, kept PD12J in mind. I do not consider that it is necessary to seek any further reports or evidence before determining the return application. However, once the children have returned to this jurisdiction then matters may need to be reviewed again at that stage. I will therefore make the return order sought. *************************** BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII