High Court Considers Novel Legal Issue
The High Court has considered a novel question in family law: can a child who has been granted humanitarian protection in the UK still be subject to an order requiring their return to another country?
In Re LM (A Child: Return Order to the UAE; Humanitarian Protection) [2026] EWHC 1988 (Fam), the High Court concluded that the grant of humanitarian protection does not automatically prevent a return order being made. The decision provides important guidance on the interaction between family law, immigration status and the court’s overriding responsibility to consider a child’s welfare.
Patrick Sheedy, Director and Head of Child Care at NBB Waldrons, represented the respondent father in the proceedings. Patrick is a highly experienced children law solicitor who specialises in complex public and private law children cases, including international children matters and proceedings before the High Court. He regularly represents parents in cases involving particularly sensitive and complicated questions concerning children’s welfare.
The background to the case
The case concerned a young child whose parents are Sudanese but had both been living in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The child was born in the United States before returning with her parents to live in the UAE.
Following the breakdown of the parents’ relationship and proceedings in the UAE, the father removed the child from the country in November 2024. After spending a period in Malaysia, the father and child arrived in the UK in January 2025.
The father subsequently applied for asylum for himself and his daughter, citing the risk they would face if returned to Sudan because of the ongoing conflict. Their asylum claims were refused, but both were granted humanitarian protection by the Home Office on the basis that they would face a real risk of serious harm if returned to Sudan. They were granted permission to remain in the UK until June 2030.
The child’s mother, who remained living and working in the UAE, subsequently brought proceedings seeking the return of her daughter to the UAE. The child was made a ward of court and separately represented through a Children’s Guardian.
Patrick represented the father, with Christopher Hames KC and Jonathan Rustin appearing as counsel on his behalf.
A novel question for the High Court
A particularly significant feature of the case was the child’s humanitarian protection status.
The court noted that there appeared to be no previously reported case involving an application for a return order where humanitarian protection had already been granted to the child and/or the parent caring for them in the UK.
The question was therefore whether that protection prevented the High Court from making or implementing an order returning the child to the UAE.
Humanitarian protection is granted where someone does not qualify for refugee status but would face a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country of origin. In this case, the protection related to the risk of returning to Sudan rather than the UAE.
The court concluded that humanitarian protection does not create an automatic prohibition on a return order. However, the court must still consider whether returning a child would expose them to risks incompatible with their rights, including protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Crucially, the child’s welfare also remained the court’s paramount consideration.
What did the High Court decide?
The UAE is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, meaning the court considered the mother’s application under its inherent jurisdiction and undertook a detailed assessment of the child’s welfare.
After considering extensive evidence, including disputed allegations between the parents, expert evidence concerning the UAE and evidence from the Children’s Guardian, the court determined that the child should return to the UAE.
When balancing the competing welfare considerations, the court ultimately found that the advantages of returning the child outweighed the disruption and impact that the move would have on her relationship with her father.
A return order was therefore made.
Why is this decision significant?
The judgment provides useful guidance at the intersection of international children law and UK immigration law.
Most importantly, it establishes that the grant of humanitarian protection does not, in itself, prevent the Family Court from making or implementing an order for a child’s return to another country.
Each case will nevertheless depend upon its own circumstances. The court must examine the destination to which the child would be returned, any potential onward risk, the child’s human rights and, above all, their welfare.
The decision also demonstrates how complex international children cases can become when family proceedings overlap with asylum, humanitarian protection and immigration law.
Patrick Sheedy commented: “This case raised an unusual and important legal question about the relationship between humanitarian protection and the Family Court’s ability to order a child’s return overseas. The judgment provides helpful clarification that humanitarian protection does not create an automatic bar to a return order, but the child’s individual circumstances, safety, human rights and welfare must remain at the heart of the court’s decision.”
Specialist advice on international children law
International children disputes can develop quickly and often involve several overlapping areas of law. Where there are questions about removing a child from England and Wales, returning a child from overseas, wardship or international relocation, obtaining specialist advice at an early stage can be particularly important.
NBB Waldrons’ Child Care team advises parents and families on complex children proceedings, including cases involving international and cross-border issues.
With offices in Merry Hill, Birmingham, London, Dudley, Kingswinford, Walsall, Worcester and Cheltenham, our specialist children solicitors advise clients involved in proceedings nationally and internationally.
If you need advice concerning an international children dispute, wardship or other complex proceedings involving a child, please contact Patrick Sheedy and our ChildCare team to discuss how we can help.
Further reading
Re LM (A Child: Return Order to the UAE; Humanitarian Protection) [2026] EWHC 1988 (Fam) was heard by Nicholas Stonor KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, between 8th and 12th June 2026. Judgment was handed down on 16th July 2026.
The full published judgment is available from The National Archives, Find Case Law here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/1988?court=ewhc%2Ffam
