Cases
Re Z
Court
In the High Court of Justice Family Division
Practice Areas
3 Members of 4PB appeared in the matter of Re Z [2026] EWHC 1012 (Fam), a final welfare determination of the father’s application for the summary return of an 8 year old child to Egypt.
Michael Gration KC, leading Frankie Shama and Katy Chokowry (instructed by Forum Shah and Ilona Jozwiak of Dawson Cornwell), appeared for the First Respondent.
Jonathan Rustin (instructed by Christopher Osborne of CAFCASS Legal) appeared for the Second Respondent.
The High Court held, on a finely balanced assessment, that the child should return to Egypt with his mother, but only once specific safeguards had been secured in advance.
This hearing followed a previous fact finding hearing at which adverse findings were made against each of the parents. The mother was found to have removed the child from Egypt without the father’s consent, including by relying on a forged custody order; and the father was found to have physically and verbally abused the mother prompting her to leave the family home. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, the Court adjourned the welfare determination pending the resolution of the mother’s outstanding asylum claim.
The court undertook a full welfare evaluation, including a global and holistic analysis of all realistic options. In reaching its decision, the court also applied the relevant provisions of Practice Direction 12J, taking into account previous findings made against the father of domestic abuse and the need to assess the practical risks arising from the legal and social framework in Egypt.
The court noted the risks of the child’s return to Egypt: the child might be removed from the mother’s care by the father, the father could use the Egyptian legal system in a way that could disadvantage the mother.
The court found that the child’s long-term welfare would be better served by re-establishing direct relationships with his father and extended family in Egypt, particularly given the instability of his current circumstances in England, where he and his mother had been living in temporary hotel accommodation for asylum-seekers and facing ongoing immigration uncertainty. The judge also considered that a return to Egypt would offer greater family support and improved long-term prospects, including the mother’s ability to support herself there. However, the court emphasised that the child’s return could only take place if effective protections were put in place in advance to protect the mother’s continued care of the child in Egypt. These included an enforceable court order in Egypt specifying that the father would not rely on the Notice of Disobedience (he had obtained against the mother for leaving the family home) in any custody dispute or to release him from any obligation to financially maintain the mother, the child would remain in the mother’s care in accommodation provided by the father, and the father’s contact with the child would be supervised by maternal family members. In addition, the court ordered the father to provide to the mother substantial advance financial provision in advance of any return. These safeguards were considered essential to reduce the risk of the child being removed from his mother’s care, the mother being disadvantaged by the Egyptian legal system or the father exercising control over the mother.
To read the full judgment click here.
What people say
