In the complex landscape of international family law, a particularly harrowing issue is that of "transnational marriage abandonment," or TMA. This occurs when one spouse takes their partner and child to a foreign country and then deserts them, seizing passports and cutting off all communication, effectively stranding them. In a recent case, the High Court delivered a landmark judgement that reinforces the English Court's power to protect children, even when they are physically overseas.
Background:
The mother and father, both Pakistani nationals, were married in Pakistan in February 2024. The father arrived in the UK on a Skilled Worker visa in July 2023, while the mother arrived as a dependent in March 2024. Their child, C, was born in Birmingham in December 2024 and had, until his abandonment, lived his entire life in the West Midlands.
In April 2025, the family travelled to Pakistan for what the mother believed was a short holiday to visit relatives. However, once in Pakistan, the father escalated a pre-existing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. He seized the mother’s and child’s passports, destroyed her mobile phone, and confined them to the paternal family home. In a calculated move, the father returned to the UK alone in July 2025, leaving the mother and his fourteen-month-old son behind without any travel documents or entry clearance. To further complicate the mother’s return, the father produced a fabricated divorce certificate, claiming the marriage had ended, and even moved a "second wife" to the UK.
The mother eventually managed to secure replacement documents and escaped back to the UK alone. She sought the protection of the English courts, while C remained in hiding in Pakistan with his maternal grandparents to avoid being snatched by the father's associates.
Decision:
The father argued that the English Court had no power to make orders because the child was now physically in Pakistan and was no longer "habitually resident" in England. However, the Court rejected this under the provisions of the Family Law Act (FLA) 1986. The Judge applied the modern test for habitual residence, which is a question of fact rather than legal status, as established in the Supreme Court case of A v A [2013]. The core question was whether the child had been integrated into a social and family environment in Pakistan.
The Judge utilised the "see-saw" principle from Re B [2016], which suggests that, as a child puts down roots in a new country, they lose their roots in the old one. Crucially, the Court found that C’s stay in Pakistan was an "unstable, coerced, and fearful" existence, as the child was living in hiding and had been separated from his primary carer (his mother) due to abuse and his father’s deceptive "stranding". Thus, the Court adjudged that C had never integrated into Pakistan. Consequently, the Court ruled that C effectively remained habitually resident in England and Wales on the date the application was issued. This gave the Court jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the FLA 1986 to make protective orders.
Implications:
This judgement is a significant victory for victims of domestic abuse and transnational abandonment. By establishing that "wrongful retention" and coercion cannot easily shift a child’s habitual residence, the Court has practically closed a loophole which abusive partners often exploit. The Judge took the exceptional step of making C a Ward of Court under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. This is a protective measure of last resort in which the Court effectively assumes legal guardianship of the child to ensure their safety.
For potential clients, this case illustrates that the English courts are increasingly alive to the nuances of Practice Direction 12J, which recognises stranding as a form of domestic abuse. It also clarifies that immigration obstacles—such as a child lacking a current visa because a father refuses to consent—will not prevent the Court from exercising its protective powers. While enforcing an English order in a non-Hague Convention country like Pakistan remains a practical challenge, the status of wardship nonetheless provides a robust legal and diplomatic framework for the mother to pursue the child’s return. It sends a clear message that the Court will not allow its jurisdiction to be subverted by fraud, fabricated divorces, or the exploitation of immigration vulnerabilities.
