AB v CD [2025] EWHC 1563 (Fam)

We acted on behalf of the father in this case which concerned cross applications for summary return, as well as the jurisdictional basis for making return orders for two children, one of whom was left behind in Egypt, and the other who had been wrongfully removed from Egypt to the UK and separated from their older sibling.

Our Head of Children, Caroline Korah, acted in this case with Charlotte Day, Mia Cooman & Josie Campbell. Vardags instructed Nick Goodwin KC of Harcourt Chambers.

Overview

The mother and father are married with two children, O, who is 8, and P, who is 3. The family were an international one, having lived and spent time in several jurisdictions including Egypt, the UK and the USA.

In July 2024, the family moved consensually from the UK to Egypt. The marriage was already strained when they left. Within a few months following the move, the mother discovered that the father was having an affair.

The mother then took matters into her own hand, wrongfully removing P from Egypt in November 2024 to the UK. She left O behind in Egypt in the father’s care as she only had a valid passport for P, with the children’s other passports being with the father.

The father sought P’s return to Egypt, whilst the mother sought O’s return to England and Wales.

The central issues

In determining both parties’ applications, the judge had to consider issues of jurisdiction, and whether the children had become habitually resident in Egypt.  The court also considered cross-allegations of abuse, legal funding, contact and the welfare and safety of the separated siblings.

On the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction, the judge found that they were able to use the ‘matrimonial proceedings jurisdiction’, under section 2(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1986. This provision enables the English and Welsh courts to hear proceedings concerning a child’s welfare, which are linked to matrimonial matters, and where the Hague Convention does not apply.

Regarding the children’s habitual residence, both parties accepted that the children had been habitually resident in the UK, before the family’s move to Egypt. The issue at hand was whether their habitual residence had then changed to Egypt after the move and at the time of the abduction. The judge found that it had, given that both parties had planned the move of the whole family to Egypt, a place they knew well and had strong connections with, with the intention of living there.

The judge carefully considered the parents’ cross allegations. The mother’s allegations included ones of abuse perpetrated against her by the father. The father denied this. The mother’s claim that she had been ‘stranded’ in Egypt was rejected, on the basis that they had both decided to move to Egypt, and that whilst the mother was put under pressure to remain in Egypt due to steps taken by the father to prevent the children’s removal, he had not prevented her from leaving. Allegations of sexual abuse did not have sufficient evidence to discharge the balance of probabilities, and the judge found that the parties’ dynamic reflected a ‘downward trajectory of an unhappy marriage’ rather than coercive and controlling behaviour. Threats made by the father following P’s removal were assessed as being metaphorical and referring to threats of legal action, rather than credible threats of violence.

the court’s findings

The judge declined to make a summary order on either party’s summary return applications, instead stating that directions would be made for a full determination of where the children should live and the role of each parent in their lives.

In coming to this decision, the judge emphasised the need to avoid unnecessary disruption to the children and for the children’s Guardian to be able to consider their welfare in light of the court’s findings.

Read the judgment in full here.