FD25P00022 - [2025] EWHC 1222 (Fam)

F says that M uprooted the children from their settled home and surroundings in Dubai and, in the oldest child’s case, her school. She did so clandestinely, without his knowledge or agreement. She has caused instability and uncertainty in their lives. They have suffered by being separated from F. He says that Dubai is familiar to M (who lived there for many years) and to the children. The children’s welfare is better met by the well-appointed family home in Dubai, surrounded by their belongings, rather than the maternal grandmother’s flat in London. He points to the financial benefits of being in Dubai, and the strong health care and educational provision. He says that if returned to Dubai, the children would have the benefit of spending time with each parent.

F submits that the recent law changes in Dubai mean that M will be treated equally and fairly under the system there both in respect of divorce and child arrangements. Issues concerning the children will be determined according to best interests. The relocation jurisdiction is available.

In summary a return to Dubai for the children will restore their routine and stability, and is in their interests.

In order to meet the various concerns raised by M about a return, he offers a series of “protective measures”, a phrase lifted from 1980 Hague Convention proceedings but which I will adopt for convenience. I emphasise that this should not be viewed in the context of the 1980 Convention jurisprudence on Article 13(b); rather it is to be seen as a series of measures designed to mitigate any risk of harm to the children, and to enhance their welfare upon return. I attach at Annex A the updated document setting out his proposals.