A family court has denied permission for a mother to relocate her child to Dubai, citing child’s welfare and the importance of maintaining his relationship with his father.
His Honour Judge Willans made the ruling in the case SA v JR [2025] EWFC 279 (B) at the West London Family Court; a dispute between separated parents over the future living arrangements of their son. The mother sought permission to move to Dubai to join her husband who had secured employment there in late 2024. The father opposed the move, advocating instead for a 50/50 shared care arrangement in the UK.
The case started in late 2024 when the mother’s (SA) husband accepted a job in Dubain and relocated. In October SA applied for court for permission to relocate with her son X. In January of this year the father (JR) applied for a prohibited steps order and child arrangements; the court refused the prohibited steps and port alert order. In July CAFCASS submitted a Section 7 report, opposing the relocation and a Dispute Resolution Appointment yields no way forward.
SA and JR separated six months after X’s birth and maintained consistent child arrangements. The re-marriage and subsequent relocation of SA’s husband prompted the application.
JR opposed the relocation, stressing the importance of maintaining his close bond with X. He proposed a shared care arrangement if the application was refused and expressed concerns about the limited contact possible if X moved abroad.
One of the key legal issues in this case is the fact Dubai is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which meant that if X were taken to Dubai and not returned, UK courts would have limited recourse. Although JR accepted SA’s assurances that she would return with X if required, the court acknowledged the significance of this legal gap.
Judge Willans took the view the child’s welfare is paramount and that relocation decisions must be based on a holistic evaluation of the child’s best interests. While acknowledging the positive role both parents played in the life of X, he found the proposed move, while well-planned and motivated by genuine intentions, would significantly disrupt X’s relationship with his father and paternal half-siblings.
The judge noted that the financial benefits of the move were modest and not compelling, especially given the family’s plan to maintain their UK accommodation. He also found the environmental comparisons between London and Dubai unpersuasive.
Importantly, the court concluded that X’s emotional needs, particularly the need for regular and predictable contact with both parents, would not be met by the proposed arrangements, referencing for example the limited crossover in school holidays. The judge stated:
“Contact periods in Easter, Summer, and Christmas for a child of this age would not be sufficient to maintain the relationship and thus would be damaging to his welfare.”
The court refused the relocation application and maintained the current child arrangements, with modifications to holiday contact to support the relationship between X, SA, and H. SA was granted permission to travel with X for holidays but not to relocate permanently.
Concluding, Judge WIllans said
“This has been a balanced decision… I accept there are positives to the move… but I have assessed it will have a significant and negative impact on X in reducing his relationship with JR.”
“I do wish X the very best as I do his parents. He is the product of their parenting and a credit to them.”
