FD25P00022 - [2025] EWHC 1222 (Fam)

M headlines six broad submissions.

First the immigration evidence suggests that M is at risk of her visa being invalidated or discharged, with the possible consequence of deportation. It is not practical to expect her to obtain some form of work based visa instead, and a visitor visa would only be for 90 days.

Second, the new family law provisions in Dubai are uncertain. M cannot be confident as to how the principles will be applied. Further, her breaches of existing orders may be held against her in child arrangements proceedings; indeed, F in his submission to the Dubai court for visitation rights dated 31 December 2024 refers to Article 12 which states that a breach by the custodian “shall be considered a breach of the condition of trust and shall be taken into account when requesting the cancellation of custody”. M specifically points to Mr Edge’s evidence about the uncertainty of relocation proceedings, in circumstances where Baroness Hale at paragraph 39 of Re J (supra) said: “…it must be relevant whether that issue is capable of being tried in the courts of the country to which [the child] is to be returned”. She refers also to the difficulties on obtaining a Protection order.

Third, the alleged domestic abuse would be perpetuated by a return to Dubai in that M would be dependent for practical, logistical and financial support on F, whom she accuses of economic abuse. She would be reliant upon F complying with the terms of the protective measures offered. She would be deprived of the support of her wider family, in particular her mother.

Fourth, her mental health issues would be exacerbated by a return to Dubai, and as a result would likely impact on the children.

Fifth, she submits that the protective measures will not meet the various matters raised.

Sixth, she says that the greater connection for the children is with England, not Dubai and the time spent in Dubai was short, fractious and unstable.