FD25P00086 - [2025] EWHC 2190 (Fam)

An ad hoc oral application was made by the father during the hearing for consideration of a return under the inherent jurisdiction. The court has power to order summary return under the inherent jurisdiction: In re NY(A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 [2020] AC 665.

I received written submissions on the question whether the court should entertain this ad hoc application. The Supreme Court in In re NY(A Child) at [55] – [64] listed the issues which should be considered before making a decision on summary return under the inherent jurisdiction.

My conclusion is that it should not: the evidence necessary for the court to make the findings required to reach a conclusion are simply not present, including the conditions he would be living in both places and the comparative advantages and disadvantages, including the potential for the maintenance of T’s relationship with the other parent (and in particular, the means by which the relationship with the mother can be maintained, given that she does not appear likely to be returning to Zimbabwe, even if T did). Further, given that there is an imminent move of residence and school planned for T in September, it would be more appropriate for an assessment to be performed after the move rather than a few weeks before it. Lastly, although there is a useful CAFCASS report addressing settlement and within that, T’s wishes and feelings regarding residence, there is no CAFCASS report considering all of the welfare implications of a move to Zimbabwe, and one would be highly desirable.

For those reasons I decline to deal with the father’s inherent jurisdiction application at this point. He can make an application in the normal way once the necessary evidence is prepared, if so advised.