ZC24P00662 - [2025] EWHC 2691 (Fam)

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

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

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

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

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