Mavis Amonoo-Acquah in C (A Child: Summary Return to Pakistan) [2025] EWHC 1427 (Fam)
21st Jul 2025 | Cases
Mavis Amonoo-Acquah, instructed by Willis Croft Solicitors, represented the second respondent Paternal Grandmother in C (A Child: Summary Return to Pakistan) [2025] EWHC 1427 (Fam); an application by mother for summary return of child to Pakistan.
The High Court considered whether to order the summary return of a child, A, to Pakistan. While Pakistan has ratified the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, the Convention does not operate bilaterally between the UK and Pakistan because the UK has not accepted Pakistan’s accession. Accordingly, this was an inherent jurisdiction case, notwithstanding the 2003 Protocol Child Abduction Cases between the UK and Pakistan (‘The Protocol’) which is an agreement between the UK and Pakistan designed to address cases of child abduction between the two countries. While not legally binding, the protocol guides the handling of such cases by courts in both countries.
The mother’s case was that A was wrongfully removed by his father from Pakistan following a campaign of deceit perpetrated by the father and paternal grandmother. The father and paternal grandmother argued that the mother agreed to the removal, and thus opposed the application for return.
The Court examined A’s habitual residence, which was contested, and scrutinised the risk of harm upon return.
The Court emphasised that the child’s welfare was paramount and that inherent jurisdiction is not a substitute for Hague Convention mechanisms. It must be used sparingly, primarily where serious harm would result from refusing return or where other remedies are unavailable. The court clarified that summary return to a non‑Convention country under inherent jurisdiction is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances where delay would significantly harm the child.
The Court found that the mother showed herself to be very capable of meeting A’s physical and emotional needs and that the father’s actions had caused serious emotional harm to A and that for as long as A remained in his father’s care, he was at risk of serious emotional harm.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the welfare threshold for a summary return had been met and the mother’s application was granted.
