The Court of Appeal (CoA) heard a case regarding the local authority (LA's) application to compel the return of a British child from a non-Convention country against the parents’ will.
Facts:
This case concerns the successful application by an LA for the return of a nine-month-old British child, J, from Thailand to the UK against the child’s parents' wishes.
J's parents have a long and serious history of involvement with the social care services, the mother having had five previous children removed and placed into care or adoption between 2005 and 2018. The father also has other children with whom he has no relationship. The risks identified by the courts were significant and chronic, including poor mental health, alcohol and substance misuse, criminality, and domestic abuse.
The parents began their relationship in 2019. In 2023, the mother gave birth to her sixth child, the father's fourth, who was subsequently placed into care and adopted. In June 2024, the mother discovered that she was pregnant again, and the GP duly informed the children’s services.
On 16 September 2024, when the mother was twenty-four weeks pregnant, the parents travelled to Thailand to avoid the removal of their baby at birth. J was subsequently born in Thailand in December of 2024. In June 2025, the parents flew back to the UK, initially claiming that they had returned only to renew their visas, and were arrested for concealing the birth of J. They eventually admitted J had been born and that they had left the baby in Thailand with friends, X and Y. Subsequent investigation revealed that J was in an unstable care arrangement, spending weekdays in a childcare facility or orphanage and weekends with the friends, whose commitment was short-lived.
The LA filed an application to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to make J a Ward of Court and order her return, asserting a high risk of significant harm due to the parents' history, deceit, and the unstable care arrangements overseas.
The Thai authorities indicated they would assist the LA in facilitating J's return, confirming they had no intention of commencing formal proceedings in Thailand. The High Court granted the order and the father appealed on 18 August 2025.
Decision:
The CoA dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order for the child, J, to be returned from Thailand to the UK. This decision affirmed that the High Court, through its inherent jurisdiction, had the power to compel the child's return to England to ensure her protection and welfare, despite her being a British national habitually resident abroad.
The Court affirmed that the order's purpose was "simply to secure the protection of the child from significant harm" as a British national, to which she is entitled under the parens patriae jurisdiction, and not to improperly confer jurisdiction on the English Court for future statutory orders. The fact that the LA intended to start public law Care Proceedings (under Part IV of the Children Act 1989) upon J's return was held to be irrelevant to the decision to exercise the inherent jurisdiction.
Implications:
This case solidifies the principles governing the use of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction (wardship) in international child protection, especially when an LA is involved. It reinforces the historical concept of parens patriae—the Crown’s right to protect its subjects—establishing that British nationality is a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over a child, even if they are living abroad. The ruling underscores that this power is reserved for those situations which meet the high threshold of "circumstances which are sufficiently compelling to require or make it necessary" for the Court to act protectively.
