ZA and BC (Children: Summary Return Order to Dubai), Re [2026] EWHC 1230 (Fam) (01 April 2026)

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1230 (Fam) Case No: FD25P00714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION THE SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 THE CHILDREN: ZA (aged 5) and BC (aged 1) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 01 April 2026 B e f o r e : Nicholas Stonor KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge ____ Between: The Father Applicant - and – The Mother Respondent ____ Mehvish Chaudhry (instructed by Hunters LLP) for the Applicant Father Adham Sleem (instructed by John Copland & Son Solicitors) for the Respondent Mother Hearing dates: 30 March, 31 March, 01 April 2026 ____

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED ____ Crown Copyright © This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 01 April 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives. Nicholas Stonor KC: 1. Introduction By an application dated 29 October 2025, the applicant father (F) seeks an order for the return to Dubai of his two children, ZA (aged 5) and BC (aged 1). The application is opposed by the children's mother (M). The children and parents are all British citizens. The family had been living in Dubai, where F works, since August 2022. In October 2025, the family travelled to the UK for a planned holiday involving extended family, and for the children to be christened. On 19 October 2025, one day before they were due to travel back to Dubai, M told F that she would be staying in the UK with the children. Since then, M and the children have been living in the UK with maternal family. F returned to Dubai where he has continued to fulfil his work commitments. He has travelled to the UK regularly to have supervised face-to-face contact with the children in accordance with interim court orders, and contact has otherwise taken place by telephone and video call.

2. The Parties' Positions F's case is that it is in the welfare interests of both children to return to Dubai whilst longer term decisions are made in respect of their care arrangements. He says that this had been their home until M wrongfully retained them in the UK. He firmly denies M's allegations of domestic abuse and says that M has exaggerated and/or fabricated events in order to "build a case" to justify her retention of the children in the UK. He says that M has failed to promote the children's relationship with him since they have been living in the UK. He says if the children return to Dubai, they can benefit from spending extensive time with both parents. He says that ZA can return to her old school where she had been thriving and can revive friendships and activities which she used to enjoy. In relation to the current geopolitical climate in Dubai arising out of the conflict in Iran, F says that he would not put his children in danger; he does not consider that there is currently any realistic risk to the children, but if that were to change, he can be trusted to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the children's safety. F has proposed a range of protective measures and 'soft landing' provisions which include: (1) the provision of separate accommodation for M and the children in Dubai; (2) financial support for M and the children whilst longer term

arrangements are resolved; (3) the funding of travel for M and the children to make visits to the UK; (4) a non-molestation undertaking (on a "without prejudice" basis) and an undertaking not to pursue any civil or criminal proceedings in relation to M's retention of the children in the UK; (5) appropriately worded child arrangements orders and prohibited steps orders with a view to reflecting constructive co-parenting; (6) a Separation Agreement reflecting these measures to be finalised before the children return to Dubai and then executed before the Family Guidance Department within the Family Court in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). M's case is that it is in the welfare interests of both children to remain in the UK. She says that she retained the children in the UK so that they were no longer exposed to F's domestically abusive behaviours. She says that they are settled here and enjoy the time they are able to spend with maternal and paternal family members. She says that ZA is thriving at her local school. She says that a return to Dubai would be disruptive for the children and would be harmful to ZA's education. Whilst confirming that she would return to Dubai with the children if F's application were granted, she says that this would be distressing for her as she had felt isolated there with only a limited number of friends. This, she says, is in contrast to the position

in the UK where she, and more importantly the children, benefit from an extensive support network of family and friends. M says that she is fearful for the children's safety given the current geopolitical climate. She points to the current FCDO guidance which advises against all but essential travel to the UAE. M also relies on news reports about drone and missile attacks and damage done to high-profile buildings in Dubai, including one which is about 11km from F's home. If, despite her objections, the court were minded to make a return order, M says this should be deferred "until this conflict has been entirely de-escalated and there is a proven ceasefire". The protective measures and 'soft landing' provisions proposed by F are largely agreed by M, though she seeks (1) a 'lives with' order in her favour with clear provision that she may return the children to the UK for periods of up to 28 days without first seeking F's consent; (2) clear stipulation as to the consequences of F breaching his undertakings, including the expectation that F would be responsible for any costs incurred by M; (3) more generous financial support.

3. This Hearing The matter was listed before me with a time estimate of three days. The bundle ran to 470 pages and included: (1) statements: four from F and three from M; (2) a report from Dr Hassan Elhais who, with the court's permission, had been jointly instructed to advise in respect of Family Law in the UAE; (3) police disclosure reflecting contacts which M made with the Police following her retention of the children in the UK; (4) records of professionally supervised contact between the children and F. I also had the benefit of a separate authorities bundle. Neither party had requested that Dr Elhais give evidence. I heard oral evidence from F and M. I then heard oral submissions in which Ms Chaudhry and Mr Sleem added to their helpful opening skeleton arguments. I am grateful to both of them and their respective instructing solicitors for their assistance. It is not practicable for me to deal with each and every aspect of the evidence or submissions, but this judgment has been prepared after reflecting on everything that I have read and heard.

4. Brief Background The following is gleaned from the written and oral evidence and is largely uncontroversial. M and F grew up in the same part of the UK where they met in 2015. They lived abroad between 2017 and 2020, following F's work. Between 2020 and 2022, during the COVID pandemic, they lived in the UK. ZA was born in the UK in late 2020. In August 2022, M and ZA joined F who had moved to Dubai a few months earlier for his work. The family lived in Dubai, with regular trips to visit extended family in the UK. BC was born in Dubai in early 2025. During a trip to the UK in July 2025, and unbeknownst to F, M consulted solicitors about their relationship. She then returned to Dubai with the children and re-joined F who had gone back a few days earlier. Both parents describe ZA as extremely bright. After trying several schools, ZA settled at School X where, on all accounts, she was thriving. In October 2025, the family returned to the UK for a multi-location holiday with extended family. They were due to return to Dubai on 20 October 2025. At the children's christening on 19 October 2025, there was some sort of altercation involving the maternal grandparents and F. The evidence available suggests that relations between the parents and their respective in-laws (F's mother having sadly died several years ago) have at times been strained. At the christening, M told F that she

and the children would not be returning with him to Dubai. F sought to persuade her to stick to the original plan. This was clearly an upsetting episode for both parents. On 20 October 2025, at around 19:24, M messaged F: "I do understand about the flights. I just need a bit of time here in the UK with the kids – not forever. I need to feel settled again. I didn't want yesterday to turn into a bad day. It meant a lot having everyone together. I just want us to talk about it properly when things feel calmer. X" F replied at around 19:40: "Thank-you for getting back – yesterday was terrible, and the heartache is still not great. I realise that you wanted to stay but this was done in the wrong causing escalating problems to the point I will probably never see [the maternal grandparents] again. Unfortunately things are going to get a lot worse – I'd rather this large amount of money go into [the children's] account. If we can chat that would be better before it goes ahead. I've booked half my flights. My suggestion would be all just to go back tomorrow and forget – if things get patched up the plan was to come back in Nov. Please let me know ASAP. I still love you and its even worse I can't see my kids. X". (I have added emphasis in bold because M asserts that these words, in this message, are an example of F's intimidating and frightening behaviours). At around 19:43, M contacted

the Police and her call was logged as 'Domestic Abuse' with a note that a "Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment" was to be completed. According to the Police log: M was upset at times during the call; she said that she believes that F will report her for kidnap; that F is trying to coerce her into returning to Dubai; that there had been controlling/abusive behaviour from F over a long period of time which had not been reported. The person taking the call noted: "it did not seem like inft was aware that much of the things husband had been doing would be considered abuse . . . [for example] . . . demanding that inft's parents shouldn't be allowed to see the children" and "shouting and threating to arrest" . M asked for a crime number which she could then put on her C100 (court application); she did not want to make a formal complaint at that time. At some point on 20 October 2025, M emailed the Passport Office for assistance, reporting: "I believe my husband may attempt to report [the children's passports] as missing or stolen." On 21 October 2025, F's solicitors sent a letter to M by email in which they confirmed that F did not consent to the children remaining in the UK and that a High Court application for a return order would be made if the children were not returned to Dubai by 24 October 2025. On the same day, M's solicitors lodged her application to the local Family Court for

child arrangements orders. M told me that she had completed the Forms C100 and C1A herself with assistance over the telephone from her solicitor. On Form C100, under the heading 'Concerns about risk of harm', M marks "Yes" to "Any form of domestic abuse?", "Child abduction?" and "Child abuse". She marks "No" to "Drugs, alcohol or substance abuse?" and "Other safety or welfare concerns?". Under the heading "Why are you making this application", M states: "[F] is demanding that I return myself and the children to Dubai by 27 th October or immediately. As the children's Mother I want to remain in the UK with my two children and feel safe knowing that he can't take them. As him telling me he will take the children back to Dubai or anywhere is a daily threat. We are staying with my parents who have been involved in the children care since they were born. We are currently stable, happy, safe environment where we all feel safe. If the children were made to return to Dubai, there is no family or friends to look after them. They would be cared for by strangers [. . . referencing F's working hours]. " On Form C1A (the supplemental form for "Allegations of harm and domestic violence"), M says "Yes" to "Emotional" abuse and "No" to "Physical", "Psychological", "Sexual" and "Financial" abuse. When describing the nature of the behaviour, M states: "Makes me question myself regularly.

Shifting blame. Make me feel upset and anxious. Tell me I'm a bad mother" , and that this behaviour started: "Since having children" . On 26 October 2025, according to the Police log, M contacted the Police to update them saying she does not know if F is in the UK or back in Dubai. On 29 October 2025, F's application for a return order was issued. Around this time, and without consulting F, M arranged for ZA to be enrolled in a local school. The first hearing was before Garrido J on 05 November 2025 when case management directions were made which included timetabling towards a final hearing. There had been no contact whatsoever between the children and F since 21 October 2025. The order recorded the parties' agreement that F should have limited video contact with the children, and direct contact supervised either professionally or by the maternal grandfather. On or around 10 November 2025, the Police completed the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment. According to the Police log: "[M] explained that she had been in Dubai with her husband and two children. At the start of October, she flew back to England with the children as she felt isolated in Dubai. Her husband [F] then instructed a solicitor in Dubai to write to her instructing that she should return the children back to Dubai. The correspondence from the solicitor really worried [M], which is why she contact Police for advice. .

. . [M] explained that approximately 4 years ago, [F] slapped her around the face when they were having an argument. There has been no other physical violence. [M] stated that their relationship had broken down as [F] always belittles her and says that she is a rubbish mother (her words). He has never controlled the family finances or controlled any aspect of her other day to day living. [M] was just not happy living in Dubai away from her family and friends. She is now living with her parents." On 15 November 2025, the police investigation was closed with "No Further Action". The professionally supervised contact took place on 13 November 2025 and 20 November 2025 and was resoundingly positive. In her first statement dated 21 November 2025, M asserted that: "I have effectively fled years of domestic abuse and retained the children because it was the only way I could protect us from the behaviours the applicant has been displaying. The applicant has also displayed behaviours towards me that are aggressive, whilst the children have been present. . . .". M goes on to describe numerous episodes over the years where she says that F behaved towards her in a way which amounts to controlling and coercive behaviour. These included: (1) an incident in March 2021, during an argument about feeding ZA, when F shouted in M's face and then slapped her downwards across the face with his open

right hand; (2) examples of F behaving in an aggressive and threatening manner towards M and her parents and brother; (3) examples of F undermining and belittling M by his words and conduct; (4) financial abuse, escalating over 2025, involving F seeking to control M's "movement, employment, and financial independence" . It is not necessary for me to set out the allegations in detail, but I have considered them in full and collectively. At a hearing before Judd J on 08 December 2025, permission was granted for the joint instruction of Dr Elhais. M's application for alcohol testing of F, which was made orally at the hearing, was dismissed. Though not recorded on the order, it is agreed that the court also refused M's application for a direction for a CAFACSS welfare report. The order recorded an agreed increase in the duration of F's contact, which was now to be supervised by his sister. Though M disputes this, it appears from a text exchange on 27 December 2025 between M and F that M had been unwilling to allow the children's paternal cousins to join in on contact. At all events, the children did not see their paternal cousins following their retention in the UK until the very end of December 2025. Dr Elhais's report was received on 18 January 2026. In short, Dr Elhais confirmed that: (1) A "Mirror Order" in the UAE can be achieved by the parties signing a Separation Agreement

and then executing it before the Family Guidance Department at the Family Court in the UAE. The Separation Agreement will then have the force of a local court judgment and can be enforced with clear consequences for breach. (2) Following the implementation of the new Federal Decree Law No 41 of 2024 (which removed the sole right of the father to apply for relocation), both parents can make a relocation application. (3) The UAE court considering a relocation application will have regard to: ". . . the financial and psychological circumstances of the parent seeking relocation, as well as the child's best interests. The court will also consider reasons such as employment opportunities in the new country, immigration issues, or the desire to live closer to family. A parent may object to the relocation request on the grounds that such a decision could be detrimental to them or affect the child's best interest." The case was re-timetabled by way of an agreed order on 19 January 2026. A Pre-Trial Review was conducted by Trowell J on 16 March 2026. At that hearing, the court refused M's request for an order that F should refrain from attending pubs or bars or consuming alcohol during contact. M had referenced F's alcohol use in her written evidence and had asserted that F should not have taken the children to Wetherspoons for breakfast during contact. F strongly refuted that his use of alcohol was in any way problematic, referencing the random and regular testing required by his employer. F similarly denied that there was anything wrong about breakfast at Wetherspoons.

5. Legal Framework The applicable law is agreed between the parties. This UAE is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Accordingly, this is a "non-Convention" case where, as clarified by Moylan LJ in Re A and B (Children) (Summary-Return: Non-Convention State) [2022] EWCA Civ 1664 (at [3]), an application for a "summary return order" in in fact shorthand for "a return order made after a summary welfare determination", The key guidance comes from the decisions of the House of Lords in Re J (Child Returned Abroad: Convention Rights) [2006] UKHL 40 , and the Supreme Court in Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 . This was helpfully distilled by Cobb J (as he then was) in J v J (Return to Non-Hague Convention Country) [2021] EWHC 2412 at [34-38]. I have all of the guidance well in mind. For the purposes of this judgment, I highlight: (1) The children's welfare is my paramount consideration and I am likely to find it appropriate to consider the first six aspects of the welfare checklist in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989. (2) It is for the court to determine the extent to which it may be necessary to inquire into aspects of the welfare checklist or other disputed matters. (3) In a case like this where domestic abuse is alleged, I must consider whether in light of Practice Direction 12J (of the Family Procedure Rules 2010), an inquiry should be

conducted into the disputed allegations and, if so, how extensive that inquiry should be. (4) Whatever view I take about issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal, these will feed into my welfare evaluation but are by no means determinative of outcome. (5) The effect of the court's decision on the children's primary carer is relevant but not determinative. In Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: Finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 , the Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew McFarlane PFD; King LJ and Holroyde LJ) said: "31. The circumstances encompassed by the definition of 'domestic abuse' in PD12J fully recognise that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the other members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or sexual abuse. In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive as or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings (see 'Scott Schedules' at paragraph 42 -50). It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parent. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. The child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways

for example where the abusive behaviour: i) Is directed against, or witnessed by, the child; ii) Causes the victim of the abuse to be so frightened of provoking an outburst or reaction from the perpetrator that she/he is unable to give priority to the needs of her/his child; iii) Creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which is inimical to the welfare of the child; iv) Risks inculcating, particularly in boys, a set of values which involve treating women as being inferior to men. It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be 'abuse' in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. We would endorse the approach taken by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61): "Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to 'domestic abuse', where 'coercive behaviour' is defined as behaviour that is 'used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…' and 'controlling behaviour' as behaviour 'designed to make a person

subordinate…' In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict." In light of the current geopolitical climate, I was referred to a number of authorities under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention where the court has considered the issue of risk in circumstances of political unrest and/or war. These cases include: Re S (Abduction: Custody Rights) [2002] EWCA Civ 908 (return order to Israel), where Ward LJ delivered the lead judgment; and two judgments of Williams J: Q v. R [2022] EWHC 2961 (return order to Ukraine) and TMS v. AVS [2023] EWHC 1620 (return order to Russia). In my reading of these cases, the key point which emerges is that the court should scrutinise the material which is available to it and ask "what is the actual risk of harm to these particular children?" (see Re S , per Ward LJ at [64] and [85]; Q v R , per Williams J at [54]; TMS v. AVS , per Williams J at [87]). Unlike cases under the 1980 Convention, the court does not then go on to consider whether the assessed risk is "grave" for the purposes of Article 13(b). Instead, the assessed risk feeds into the overall welfare evaluation.

6. The Oral Evidence Both M and F are clearly highly intelligent individuals who are devoted to their children. It was heartening to hear each of them describe the other's parenting skills in glowing terms. I decided to allow Mr Sleem to put the domestic abuse allegations in some detail to F in cross-examination, and Ms Chaudhry to cross-examine the mother in some detail in response. This seemed to me to be the fairest way of conducting the matter for all concerned given the significance of the domestic abuse allegations, and the apparent absence of corroborating evidence. I was mindful of the insidious nature of coercive and controlling behaviour, and allowing a fuller exploration of M's allegations meant I could then take a step back and consider them collectively. Having regard to the guidance from case law set out above, my inquiry into the domestic abuse allegations has been more extensive than might usually be the case in the course of a summary process. F cut a somewhat forlorn figure. Whilst acknowledging that there had been "ups and downs" in his marriage, he seemed genuine when he told me that he had thought that his marriage was going well overall and that M's retention of the children and her subsequent allegations had come as a profound shock to him. F answered questions in a straightforward manner. He resolutely denied that he had ever physically assaulted M or

otherwise behaved in a way which could properly be described as "abusive". He accepted that there had been arguments and "bickering" and that he had sometimes said things which he now regretted. But most of M's allegations, some of them detailed in the words M ascribed to F, were met by F with bewildered bemusement. Mr Sleem highlighted the fact that F responded to most of M's allegations with bare denials and submitted that this showed that F lacked credibility. Taking F's evidence in the round and alongside all the other evidence available to me, I do not accept that submission. I found F to be an essentially credible witness. Whilst acknowledging that a return to Dubai would involve disruption for the children and further change, F was clear in his view that such disruption would be modest and manageable, and that the children would benefit from spending time with him as well as their mother. In relation to the current geopolitical climate, I found F's evidence to be measured. He readily acknowledged the need for caution as expressed by government guidance both in the UK and in the UAE. The nature of his employment means that he has a keen awareness of how external pressures are impacting on day-to-day life and travel in and around Dubai. He described how, in his view, much of life in Dubai is going on as "relatively normal", albeit with much-reduced tourism. He does not

consider that returning the children now would put them at risk. He was clear that, should his assessment change, he would take action to protect the children. M also cut a forlorn figure, and I have no doubt that recent events concerning the children, and these proceedings, have taken their toll on her too. In respect of the domestic abuse allegations, it was put to her that she had essentially been "case building" following her retention of the children. She firmly denied that but could offer no cogent explanation for why the information in the Police log, including the information gleaned during the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment, ran counter to the case she has set out in her written evidence. M insisted that her comments had not been reported accurately. When asked about the discrepancies between, on the one hand, her domestic abuse allegations and the concerns she has raised about F's alcohol use, and on the other hand, the information contained in her Form C100 and Form C1A, M could only say that it was a difficult time. I accept of course that it was a difficult time, and that court forms are not always completed accurately for all sorts of reasons, but her evidence on this – taken with her evidence overall – was not convincing. As I have already mentioned, some of M's allegations were detailed in the words she ascribed to F. That can of course be a positive indicator

in terms of witness credibility. However, even if M may have been right in some instances about the words used by F, I did not consider that I could rely on M to report those words in their proper context. As I have noted in para 20 above, on 20 October 2025, F did use the words " Unfortunately things are going to get a lot worse" , but when seen in context it is difficult to accept that M really did find those words intimidating and frightening. M's allegations of "financial control" are not only undermined by the information contained in the Police log, but by the agreed facts which include M having had access to F's credit card in Dubai whilst also receiving rental income of her own from a property in the UK. When asked about her proposals for future contact if the children remained in the UK, M said that she would agree to the children having overnight contact within a matter of weeks. She quickly sought to backtrack from that as, I sensed, she realised how this proposal was wholly inconsistent with a key foundation of her case – that the children need protecting from F. M's evidence was similarly unsatisfactory when she sought to maintain that she had done all she could to promote contact between the children and F since October 2025. That is simply not borne out by the facts which show that F has had to push for contact to take place at all, and then for it to be

gradually increased. M was unconvincing when she insisted that she had always been in favour of the children having contact with their cousins, despite the content of the messages on 27 December 2025. M's complaints about breakfast at Wetherspoons were unjustified. M seemed to show no real insight into the impact on F, and much more importantly on the children, of her decision to retain the children in the UK and restrict their relationship with F.

7. Welfare Evaluation I am not deciding the long-term care arrangements for the children. I am deciding whether the children should remain in the UK or return to Dubai whilst their long-term care arrangements are resolved, either by agreement (which would plainly be preferable) or by court determination. The children's welfare is my paramount consideration. Wishes and Feelings : ZA is reported by M to have said some negative things about F's behaviour. Even if that is right, I must consider those comments in context: all of the other evidence available points to ZA having an excellent relationship with F; ZA is bound to be confused by the seismic events in her life over recent months; ZA is of course living with M who, on my assessment of the evidence currently available, cannot be relied upon to promote a positive image of F. Given the children's ages and understanding, and in light of all of the evidence, I assume that they would wish to be able to enjoy a meaningful relationship with both of their parents. Needs : The children's physical needs will be met whether they are in the UK or Dubai. Similarly in respect of their educational needs – even if in Dubai ZA's education would be provided remotely in the short term (as is the current arrangement, subject to UAE governmental guidance which is kept under regular review). Both children have a profound emotional need to spend

meaningful time with both their parents. Change in Circumstances : A return to Dubai will involve disruption for the children, but I expect that will be short-term and manageable given the capabilities of their parents and the fact that, for ZA, she would be returning to a familiar environment. If the children remain in the UK, there will be short-term stability but longer-term loss in terms of their relationship with F. Age, Sex, Background : The children are British citizens with obvious connections to the UK in terms of language and extended family. But ZA lived over half of her life in Dubai. As M readily acknowledged, if in October 2025 ZA had been asked "where's your home?", she would have answered "Dubai". BC was born in Dubai and that was his home too until October 2025. Though not determinative of this application, as at 20 October 2025, the children were plainly habitually resident in Dubai. Harm / Risk of Harm : I have conducted a relatively extensive inquiry into M's allegations of domestic abuse by reference to the written evidence currently available and the parties' oral evidence. It has not been asserted that there is any additional or "missing" evidence of significance. In light of my assessment of the evidence set out above, I am not satisfied that F has perpetrated domestic abuse. I do not doubt that there were arguments which might have sometimes involved

raised voices and things said that ought not to have been said. But on my assessment, this falls into the category of behaviours alluded to by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) (see above). In respect of the current geopolitical crisis, I do not downplay M's concerns. Anyone watching or listening to the news over recent days and weeks would hesitate before considering sending two young children back to Dubai. The FCDO guidance gives further pause for thought. However, in line with the authorities, I must focus so far as possible on the particular risk, if any, to ZA and BC. I found F's evidence on this to be persuasive, coming from someone who, I am satisfied, would not countenance putting his children in danger. Of course, F is not able to eradicate risk altogether. And it is impossible to predict how the current crisis will progress and for how long. But on all the evidence available, I assess the risk to be low. The more telling risk for the children, in my judgment, is one of emotional harm relating to the restriction of their relationship with F. Capability of Parent : As I have already described, M and F are both highly capable in many respects. Regrettably, on the evidence currently available, M lacks insight into the impact of her actions on the children and the importance to them of having a meaningful relationship with F. I have no doubt that a return to Dubai will cause M some upset and distress, and I am sorry about that. M has not suggested that a return would impact significantly on her mental health.

8. Decision Informed by this summary welfare evaluation, I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests for them to be returned to Dubai. It is regrettable that this will involve disruption for them, but that deficit is amply outweighed by the benefit of them having a meaningful relationship with both parents. I do not consider that it would be in the children's welfare interests to defer the implementation of the return order. My assessment of risk is such that the children's safety does not demand a deferral, and a deferral would leave them, and their parents, in limbo for an uncertain period of time. The return order should be implemented within the next few weeks, and I will fix a date if a timetable cannot be agreed. I endorse the protective measures and 'soft landing' provisions which are agreed. In respect of the disputed matters: (1) I do not consider that it is in the children's welfare interests to make a 'lives with' order in favour of M. There is no dispute that she will continue to be the children's primary carer and there is no need for this to be reflected in an order. Against the backdrop of M's unilateral decision-making over recent months, I am concerned that such an order might be misused or misinterpreted so as to give M an unwarranted level of enhanced parental responsibility. (2) For similar reasons, I do not agree that M should be able to

remove the children from the UAE without F's consent for short periods. I am confident that F will not withhold consent unreasonably. (3) Contact between the children and F should be unsupervised. Following their return to Dubai, it should involve overnight contacts at a baseline level of two nights per week. I very much hope that the parents will be able to find an arrangement which suits them and works best for the children. (4) Having regard to that part of Dr Elhais's report which addresses in detail the potential consequence in the UAE if there were to be a breach of undertakings, I do not consider it necessary to include any further stipulations. (5) In relation to the disputed level of financial support, I will hear further submissions in respect of this and, if necessary, will make what will inevitably be something of a broad-brush assessment. I will invite counsel to agree a draft order. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII