[2025] EWHC 1064 (Fam)

Given the history that I have outlined in this case, it is understandable that the father would be given pause by the mother’s request for the return of her passport. The court is likewise wary of providing the mother with the wherewithal to cross international borders given what I am satisfied is a continuing and appreciable risk of abduction. The mother has gone to extraordinary lengths to remove Adam from the care of his father and to conceal him from the court, from the police and from the safeguarding authorities.

Against this, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Nobu Su & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1187, the interference with the liberty of the respondent under a passport order must be for no longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it has been granted, the Court of Appeal having held in Bayer A.G. v Winter [1986] 1 WLR 497 that a passport order should be of very limited duration given the interference with the liberty of the subject which is involved.

In this case, the passport order was granted in order to secure the return of Adam to his father’s care. Adam is now back in the care of his father and his passport is secure. As I have noted, Adam’s name remains on the police national computer, providing him with a measure of protection at the country’s borders whereby the police will be notified immediately should Adam be presented at a port with any person other than the father. The mother’s parental responsibility will be circumscribed by way of prohibited steps order and a specific issue order in the manner I have described with regard to her knowing Adam’s current whereabouts. In these circumstances, the continued retention of the mother’s passport in addition represents a significant interference in the mother’s rights, particularly where the purpose for which the passport order was made has been fulfilled and she is a foreign national who has relatives abroad.

Balancing the competing factors, I am satisfied that the time has come for the mother’s passport to be returned to her. Once again, I bear in mind that an information marker on the Police National Computer will act as a port alert in respect of Adam, that prohibited steps orders and a specific issue order will remain in force to regulate the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility in respect of Adam and that there will continue to be a non-molestation order in place for the reasons I have set out.