Court Rejects Father’s Bid to Block Child’s Travel After Passport Refusal

The Al Madam Court of First Instance has dismissed a father’s challenge to a judicial order allowing his four-year-old daughter to travel abroad with her custodian, ruling that his own non-compliance caused the travel permit to expire and rendered the objection legally baseless.

 

The Personal Status Circuit found that the father failed to hand over the child’s passport within the deadline set by the court, which resulted in the trip being cancelled and the travel authorisation lapsing. The court therefore held that the objection no longer had a valid legal subject.

 

Court records showed that the dispute began after the mother, the child’s legal custodian, was granted permission to travel with the minor to Jordan for six days under specific conditions. She was required to bear all travel expenses, while the father was ordered to provide the child’s passport two days before departure and receive it back after their return to the UAE.

 

The father later sought to revoke the permit, arguing the trip was neither medically necessary nor linked to any emergency warranting travel. He also claimed the mother had not coordinated with him before seeking approval and suggested she could travel alone while the child remained in his care.

 

He further contended that the order infringed his court-established visitation rights, depriving him of access to his daughter without proper justification. He also argued the permit lacked urgent necessity and adequate legal safeguards to ensure the child’s return.

 

In response, the mother told the court the trip could not proceed because the father repeatedly refused to surrender the passport despite several attempts to enforce the order. She said his refusal led to cancelled arrangements and caused her financial loss and emotional distress.

 

In its reasoning, the court noted that the authorised travel period had already expired by the time the objection was examined. It stressed that judicial objections must relate to an existing and effective legal matter, and a party cannot seek relief against an order whose execution was obstructed by that same party.

 

The court added that failure to comply with judicial orders within prescribed timelines does not create legal rights for the non-compliant party, nor revive an order whose effects have already lapsed.

 

Accordingly, the objection was dismissed and the father was ordered to bear all court fees and expenses.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.