ZC24P00662 - [2025] EWHC 2691 (Fam)

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

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

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

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