Family, Wills, Succession Planning

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a supervisor who left a group of children at a swimming pool before the coach had formally taken responsibility for them, resulting in the drowning death of a child.

The court dismissed the supervisor’s appeal against his conviction for causing death through negligence. Both the accompanying supervisor and the person responsible for supervision at the swimming pool were convicted, fined Dh1,000 each and ordered to pay blood money (diya) jointly.

The Public Prosecution had charged the two men with failing to discharge their duties of care and supervision and neglecting the necessary precautions to protect the children from danger.

In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that an adult entrusted with children cannot consider their responsibility discharged simply because they have brought them to a sports club or another designated venue. The duty of care continues until the children are properly handed over to an identified person who has actually assumed responsibility for their safety.

The incident took place when a supervisor accompanied a group of children from a Quran memorisation centre to a swimming pool at a sports club in the UAE.

After reaching the venue, the supervisor left the children before the swimming coach had started his duties or taken charge of them. During the resulting gap in supervision, one of the children entered the pool and drowned. The child had never previously been to a swimming pool and was unable to swim.

The Public Prosecution subsequently referred two individuals to trial: the supervisor who had accompanied the children and the person responsible for their supervision at the swimming facility. Both were accused of failing to meet their respective obligations and take adequate measures to protect the children from the risks associated with the swimming pool.

The courts found that their failure to provide effective supervision had exposed the children to danger and contributed to the fatal incident.

The Court of First Instance convicted both defendants, imposed a fine of Dh1,000 on each and ordered them to pay diya jointly. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the verdict.

Supervisor Claimed Responsibility Ended At Club

Challenging the conviction before the Federal Supreme Court, the accompanying supervisor argued that his responsibility was confined to transporting the children to the sports club. He maintained that once they had reached the premises, supervision became the responsibility of the club's employees and swimming coach.

The court rejected this interpretation, holding that the arrival of children at a designated facility does not, by itself, transfer the responsibility of supervision to its staff.

It ruled that the accompanying supervisor should have remained with the children until the swimming coach had directly received them and begun supervising them. Simply leaving the children at the venue on the assumption that another person would take over did not satisfy the duty of care.

The court emphasised that a proper handover requires more than the physical arrival of children at a facility. The person assuming responsibility must be aware of their presence, understand any circumstances relevant to their safety and actually begin supervising them.

Until those conditions are met, the accompanying adult cannot regard their responsibility as having ended.

The court also considered the child's lack of experience in swimming, describing the circumstances as requiring particular attention and precaution.

Since the child had never used a swimming pool and could not swim, the accompanying supervisor was expected to communicate this information to the coach. Such information was important to ensure that appropriate safety arrangements were made before the child was allowed near or into the water.

The judgment underlined that the supervisor's obligations extended beyond organising transport and bringing the children to the sports club. They included ensuring continuity of supervision and preventing any interval during which the children could be exposed to danger without effective adult oversight.

The court further made clear that responsibility arising from the care of a child does not automatically cease when the child reaches the intended destination. It remains in force for as long as the child is under the person's supervision, unless responsibility has genuinely been transferred to another individual.

Court Upholds Negligence Conviction

Finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the supervisor's appeal and upheld his conviction for causing the child's death through negligence.

The ruling reinforces an important principle concerning the supervision of children during organised activities: responsibility cannot be transferred merely through an assumption that employees, instructors or coaches at the destination will take over.

There must be an effective handover to someone who has accepted the responsibility and begun exercising supervision. A failure to establish that transfer may leave the accompanying adult legally accountable for a subsequent incident.

The judgment has particular relevance for schools, Quran memorisation centres, childcare institutions, sports clubs and other organisations arranging outings and recreational activities involving children. Where several adults or institutions share responsibility, each must understand when their own duty begins and ends.

It also highlights the risks associated with even a brief interruption in supervision, particularly in environments such as swimming pools where children who lack swimming experience may face immediate danger.

The court's decision serves as a reminder that safeguarding children requires continuous and clearly established supervision, rather than informal arrangements based on assumptions about who is responsible. Where a breach of the duty of care is established and linked to a fatal outcome, those entrusted with a child's safety may face criminal liability for negligence.

A child's safety is no longer a responsibility confined to the home or the physical environment. In the UAE, the legal obligations of parents and guardians increasingly extend to children's activities in public spaces, their use of digital platforms and their exposure to potentially harmful online interactions. A failure to provide appropriate supervision can, depending on the circumstances, attract criminal liability under the country's child-protection legislation.

A recent case before the Abu Dhabi courts illustrates this wider responsibility. A woman was convicted of child neglect after allegedly allowing a young girl to remain alone at a beach late at night and failing to supervise her use of social media. The child reportedly misused a social media platform, resulting in her photographs being circulated among other people.

Prosecutors argued that the woman had failed to take the necessary measures to protect the child's moral safety. The case was brought under Federal Law No. 3 of 2016 concerning Child Rights, commonly known as Wadeema’s Law.

The court of first instance found the woman guilty and initially ordered her to perform two months of community service, in addition to paying court fees. The federal appeal court subsequently cancelled the community service measure and imposed a fine of Dh3,000 instead.

The woman challenged the enforcement of the judgment, but the court declared her objection inadmissible. The Attorney General then approached the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court had improperly worsened the woman's position because she alone had appealed the original judgment.

The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the appellate court had violated the procedural protection available to a sole appellant. It overturned the appeal judgment and returned the matter for reconsideration of the punishment.

Although the final ruling concerned criminal procedure, the underlying case raises a broader legal question: how far does the responsibility of a parent or guardian extend when a child is exposed to risks through inadequate supervision, particularly in the digital environment?

Wadeema’s Law: Defining The Duty Of Care

Federal Law No. 3 of 2016 establishes the UAE's principal framework for protecting children against neglect, abuse, exploitation and circumstances that threaten their development and wellbeing.

The legislation applies to children under 18 years of age and places obligations on parents, custodians and other persons entrusted with their care. Its approach is broader than the traditional understanding of child protection, which tends to focus primarily on physical abuse, abandonment or the failure to provide basic necessities.

The law recognises that a child's physical, psychological, mental and moral integrity must all be protected. This means that neglect can arise not only when a child is denied food, shelter or medical attention, but also when a caregiver fails to provide appropriate supervision or guidance.

Article 34 prohibits exposing a child's mental, psychological, physical or moral safety to danger through specified circumstances, including unnecessary abandonment and the denial of appropriate care.

Article 35 addresses the responsibilities of caregivers more directly. It prohibits abandoning or neglecting a child, frequently leaving the child without supervision or control, failing to provide guidance and neglecting the child's affairs. It also addresses failures concerning compulsory education.

These provisions establish that supervision is an essential part of the legal duty of care. A caregiver cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by arguing that a child was not physically injured or that no deliberate harm was intended.

In the Abu Dhabi case, leaving a young girl alone at a public beach late at night raised questions about the child's vulnerability, the potential dangers of the location and the absence of responsible adult supervision. The allegation concerning social media added another dimension, as the child's online activities were also considered within the wider question of adequate care.

However, criminal liability must be established through the relevant statutory provisions and evidence. The child's age, maturity, circumstances, duration of unsupervised activity and the nature of the risk may all be relevant when determining whether a caregiver has breached the law.

Criminal Consequences of Child Neglect

The consequences of violating the relevant child-protection requirements are set out in Chapter Eleven of Wadeema’s Law.

Article 60 provides for imprisonment or a fine of not less than Dh5,000 for violations of Articles 34 and 35, among other specified provisions.

This makes failure to provide the required level of supervision a potential criminal offence rather than simply a matter of family discipline or parental discretion.

Importantly, the responsibility is not restricted to biological parents. The law's definition of a custodian extends to persons legally responsible for a child or entrusted with the child's care. Depending on the circumstances, other individuals who assume responsibility for supervising a child may also come within the scope of the applicable obligations.

The legislation also provides for protective intervention when a child's safety is threatened. Child-protection specialists and the competent authorities can take measures to remove a child from an environment presenting imminent danger, including circumstances in which immediate intervention may be necessary.

Such measures demonstrate that the law has two objectives: holding responsible persons accountable and preventing further harm to children. The focus is not exclusively on punishment after an incident has occurred.

The Digital Dimension of Child Protection

The social-media allegations in the Abu Dhabi case are particularly relevant in light of the UAE's subsequent legislative developments.

Children increasingly use social networking applications, messaging services, online games and video-sharing platforms. These environments can expose them to inappropriate material, cyberbullying, exploitation, privacy violations and contact with individuals whose intentions may be harmful.

Wadeema’s Law provides the broader foundation for protecting children against risks affecting their moral and psychological wellbeing. The UAE has since introduced more specific obligations through Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2025 concerning Child Digital Safety, which came into force on January 1, 2026.

Article 13 is particularly significant because it expressly addresses the responsibilities of caregivers in the digital environment.

Parents and guardians are required to monitor the digital activities of children under their care and use parental-control tools to promote safe access to digital platforms and prevent exposure to harmful content. These responsibilities must be exercised while respecting the child's digital independence according to age and maturity.

The law also restricts caregivers from creating accounts for children on digital platforms that are inappropriate for their age or do not comply with the required child-protection controls. It addresses the use of shared accounts and screens where the content or services are unsuitable for children.

Another important aspect concerns the digital representation of children. Caregivers must not showcase or exploit children through online platforms in ways that threaten their privacy, dignity or psychological and social wellbeing, or expose them to bullying.

The obligations extend to protecting children's personal data, educating them about responsible digital behaviour and explaining the potential psychological, behavioural and health consequences of excessive or unsafe device use.

Caregivers are also required to report harmful content and child pornography material to the competent authorities.

The significance of Article 13 is that digital supervision is now expressly recognised as a legal responsibility. Monitoring a child's online activities is not simply a recommended parenting practice. It forms part of the statutory framework governing child safety.

At the same time, the legislation recognises that supervision must be proportionate. It does not require parents to eliminate all digital independence but expects them to take appropriate measures based on the child's age, maturity and exposure to risk.

Social Media Restrictions and the Minimum Age

The UAE has further strengthened its approach through Cabinet Resolution No. 106 of 2026 concerning the Regulation of Children's Access to Social Media Platforms.

The resolution establishes 15 years as the minimum age for children to create, use or operate personal accounts on covered social media platforms. It introduces restrictions on access to interactive features for younger children, including posting, commenting, sharing and participating in public or open interactive spaces.

For children aged 15 to under 16, access is subject to enhanced safeguards, including restrictions on certain high-risk features and stronger controls over interactions.

The framework initially covers platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.

It also places obligations on digital platforms to introduce reliable age-verification mechanisms, prevent underage account creation, provide appropriate parental controls and take measures against attempts to circumvent the restrictions.

The resolution provides a transition period of up to 12 months for platforms to align their systems and operations with the requirements.

These provisions represent an important shift in the allocation of responsibility for online child protection. Parents and guardians are expected to supervise children's access, while platforms must implement safeguards to prevent inappropriate or unauthorised use.

The rules should not be interpreted as automatically making parents criminally liable whenever a child accesses social media or encounters harmful material. The applicable obligation, the circumstances and the evidence must be examined before liability can be established.

Nevertheless, the regulatory direction is clear: children's online safety is now a shared responsibility involving families, technology companies and government authorities.

Photographs, Privacy and Online Exploitation

The reported circulation of the girl's photographs raises another important aspect of child protection: the legal distinction between inappropriate social-media activity, violations of privacy and the exploitation of minors.

The circulation of a child's photograph does not automatically constitute a criminal offence in every circumstance. Its legal implications depend on how the photograph was obtained, the nature of the material, the purpose for which it was shared and whether the child's privacy or other protected rights were violated.

Wadeema’s Law contains specific prohibitions concerning child pornography and sexual exploitation. Article 37 addresses the production, publication, distribution and possession of child pornography and the exploitation of children in pornographic material.

Other conduct may fall within Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes, depending on the circumstances. The Child Digital Safety Law also strengthens protections concerning children's personal information and privacy.

Consequently, authorities examining such incidents may need to determine whether the photographs were shared without appropriate safeguards, whether the child was exposed to exploitation or bullying, and whether any separate privacy or cybercrime provisions were breached.

The distinction matters because the law seeks to protect children from both immediate harm and the longer-term consequences of digital exposure, including reputational damage, harassment and psychological distress.

Supreme Court Clarifies the Limits of Criminal Appeals

While the child-neglect allegations formed the basis of the prosecution, the final stage of the proceedings raised a separate question concerning the rights of a convicted person during an appeal.

The Federal Supreme Court examined Article 241 of Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2022 promulgating the Criminal Procedures Law.

The provision protects a defendant who is the sole appellant against an adverse alteration of the original judgment. Where only the convicted person appeals and the Public Prosecution has not challenged the decision, the appellate court cannot use that appeal to place the defendant in a worse position.

In this case, the woman had originally been ordered to perform two months of community service. Following her appeal, the court replaced the measure with a Dh3,000 fine.

The Supreme Court considered the substitution an adverse change in her position. Since the prosecution had not appealed the original judgment, the appellate court could not impose a more disadvantageous outcome through the woman's appeal alone.

The ruling reinforces an important safeguard in criminal justice: exercising the right to appeal should not expose a defendant to a harsher outcome when the prosecution has not independently challenged the original decision.

The Supreme Court did not acquit the woman or overturn the underlying finding of guilt. It set aside the appeal judgment and returned the case for reconsideration of the punishment in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.

A Changing Standard of Parental Responsibility

The Abu Dhabi case illustrates how the UAE's child-protection framework is evolving to address risks that extend beyond conventional notions of neglect.

Wadeema’s Law establishes the fundamental obligation to protect children against abandonment, inadequate supervision and circumstances that threaten their physical, mental and moral wellbeing. The 2025 Child Digital Safety Law translates that broader responsibility into specific duties concerning online monitoring, parental controls, privacy and harmful content. The 2026 social-media regulations add age-based access restrictions and obligations for technology platforms.

Taken together, these measures establish that a caregiver's responsibility does not end when a child leaves the home or gains access to a digital device. Appropriate supervision must extend to public spaces, social interactions and online activities.

The legislation does not make every parental error a criminal offence, nor does it impose an absolute guarantee against every possible risk. However, it requires parents and guardians to exercise reasonable care, provide appropriate guidance and take preventive measures against foreseeable dangers.

The central legal principle is that a child's best interests must remain paramount, whether the threat arises at a public beach, within a social environment or through a digital platform. In the UAE's evolving legal framework, protecting children increasingly means safeguarding both their physical presence and their digital lives.

Can a person be convicted of assault for injuring someone while attempting to stop an attack? A case before the Ajman Court of Appeal in October 2026 has brought this question into focus. The court acquitted a 22-year-old man accused of assaulting his father, relying on CCTV footage that supported his claim that he had acted to stop an attack rather than initiate one.

The case illustrates how surveillance footage, witness testimony and the sequence of events can influence the outcome of criminal proceedings. It also raises a wider legal question: when does the use of force amount to a criminal offence, and when can it be justified as legitimate self-defence under UAE law?

How CCTV Changed the Outcome

The incident took place at the family home in Ajman following a disagreement over the withdrawal of a criminal complaint. According to the case account, the father entered a room carrying a stick and struck his son several times. The son subsequently took the stick away from his father and broke it, maintaining that he had done so to prevent the violence from continuing.

The father sustained injuries and accused his son of assault. Both faced charges arising from the incident, and the case proceeded through several stages of litigation. After the son was convicted on appeal, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision and referred the matter back for reconsideration.

On reviewing the evidence, a new appellate panel found that the CCTV footage supported the son's account of what had happened. The judges concluded that taking the stick away was an attempt to stop the attack, rather than an act of aggression. The court consequently acquitted the son, finding that the evidence did not establish his criminal responsibility.

The ruling demonstrates that an injury sustained during a confrontation does not, by itself, establish that the person responsible for causing it has committed a criminal offence. The sequence of events, the circumstances prompting the response and the available evidence must all be considered when determining criminal liability.

What Does UAE Law Say About Self-Defence?

The principal legislation governing criminal responsibility in this area is Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 on the Crimes and Penalties Law, as amended. Article 58 addresses legitimate defence and sets out circumstances in which conduct undertaken to protect oneself or another person may be treated as lawful rather than criminal.

The application of this defence depends on the circumstances and the statutory conditions. The threat must justify intervention, and the response must be assessed against the nature and immediacy of the danger. The availability of assistance from the competent authorities, the possibility of avoiding the threat by other means and the proportionality of the response are also relevant considerations under the applicable legal framework.

For example, disarming someone who is actively attacking another person may constitute legitimate defence, depending on the circumstances. By contrast, striking the attacker after the danger has passed or pursuing them to inflict punishment would ordinarily be difficult to justify on that basis. Such conduct could be regarded as retaliation rather than an attempt to prevent harm.

Courts must examine the facts of each case rather than apply a single rule to every confrontation. The seriousness of the threat, the timing of the response and the degree of force used can all influence whether the conditions for legitimate defence have been satisfied. An action that is justified during an ongoing attack may be viewed differently once the immediate danger has ended.

Can You Defend Another Person Under UAE Law?

Legitimate defence is not confined to protecting oneself. Article 58 also recognises defence of others, allowing the relevant legal principles to apply when a person intervenes to protect someone facing a threat. This can be particularly significant during domestic disputes, family altercations or situations in which a bystander attempts to stop an assault.

However, intervening on behalf of a relative or another person does not automatically provide immunity from criminal charges. The circumstances must still satisfy the requirements of the law, including the need for the intervention and the relationship between the force used and the threat faced.

The central distinction is between action intended to prevent immediate harm and conduct motivated by revenge after the danger has passed. Establishing that distinction requires an assessment of what happened before, during and after the confrontation, rather than an examination of the resulting injuries alone.

The Role of CCTV and Other Evidence

The Ajman proceedings underline the importance of objective evidence in assault cases. CCTV footage helped the court assess the sequence of events and determine whether the son's actions were consistent with his claim that he had attempted to stop the attack. Such recordings can provide context that may be missing from the accounts of the people involved.

Other potentially relevant evidence includes mobile phone recordings, medical reports, photographs of injuries, witness statements and messages exchanged around the time of the incident. Each item must be assessed for its reliability and consistency with the wider evidential picture. The admissibility of recordings and other material, as well as the circumstances in which they were obtained, may also affect their use in court.

Medical reports can establish the nature and extent of an injury, but they do not necessarily determine who caused it, how the incident unfolded or whether the conduct amounted to a criminal offence. Those questions require the court to consider medical findings alongside witness accounts, recordings and other relevant material.

What Should You Do After an Altercation?

Anyone involved in a violent confrontation should first move to safety and distance themselves from any continuing threat. Where necessary, they should contact the police and seek medical assistance. It may also be important to identify witnesses and preserve potentially relevant CCTV recordings, photographs, messages and other evidence before they are lost or deleted.

A claim of self-defence does not guarantee acquittal. Its success depends on the evidence, the circumstances of the incident and whether the applicable statutory requirements have been met. Those involved should seek legal advice promptly and take care not to alter, delete or selectively present material that could be relevant to the investigation.

The burden of proof must also be distinguished from the practical need to produce evidence supporting a defence. A defendant does not automatically bear the ultimate burden of proving self-defence in every criminal case. The applicable evidential rules and the legal consequences of the material presented must be assessed under UAE law and in light of the particular proceedings.

The Ajman case reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: force must be judged in context. Legitimate self-defence may protect a person who uses appropriate force to counter an immediate threat, including when intervening to protect someone else. But the legal distinction between necessary intervention and unlawful retaliation ultimately depends on the facts, the evidence and the requirements of the law.

An Abu Dhabi mother’s proposal to include ChatGPT in her will has raised an unusual question for family law: can a parent preserve guidance on a child’s upbringing after death by asking a future guardian to consult artificial intelligence?

The proposal, reported on October 12, 2026, involves a seven-page bilingual draft known as the “Living Wishes Protocol”, prepared by Expatriate Law. It seeks to preserve the mother’s values and parenting philosophy in a form that could help guide decisions about her son’s education, healthcare, residence, religious upbringing and family relationships after her death.

The arrangement would not appoint ChatGPT as a guardian or give it independent decision-making powers. Instead, the proposed protocol would ask the people caring for the child to consult the system when making important decisions, while leaving responsibility with the human guardian.

The distinction is fundamental. The legal question is not whether a will can mention an AI service, but whether a court would recognise an obligation to consult it and, if so, what legal effect that obligation would have.

As of October 29, the draft had not been registered or approved by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department. Its validity must therefore be considered as an unresolved legal question, rather than an established precedent.

A Will Cannot Override the Law

The first issue is whether instructions about a child’s upbringing can acquire legal force simply because they appear in a will.

Abu Dhabi has a civil-wills framework under Law No. 14 of 2021, as amended, for people governed by its provisions. Registration and formal approval are important to recognition under that framework. However, the ability to make a will does not mean every provision concerning a child’s future care will automatically be enforceable.

A will may record parental preferences, nominate a person to care for a child where the applicable law permits it, and provide information intended to help future carers. But decisions concerning guardianship, personal welfare and the exercise of parental authority remain subject to the relevant legal rules and judicial oversight.

The position may also depend on the family’s nationality, religion, personal circumstances and the legal regime applicable to the instrument. It would be unsafe to assume that one set of rules governs every expatriate family in Abu Dhabi.

The proposed protocol therefore raises two separate questions: whether the mother can formally record her wishes and whether she can require a future guardian to follow a particular decision-making process.

The first is more straightforward than the second. A parent can express preferences about a child’s upbringing, but the legal effect of those preferences depends on the applicable law and the circumstances in which they are applied.

Guardianship is Different From Parental Wishes

The UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024 on Personal Status contains provisions dealing with minors, guardianship, tutorship and trusteeship. Article 126 addresses the appointment of a tutor by a father in specified circumstances, including his death or inability to act, while allowing a court to make an appointment where appropriate.

The precise application of these provisions must be considered alongside any other legislation governing the family concerned. A parent’s testamentary instructions cannot, by themselves, displace the authority of a competent court or remove the legal responsibilities attached to guardianship.

The DIFC Courts’ Guardianship Will service provides a separate example of how parental wishes may be formalised. Its framework allows eligible individuals to register wills nominating guardians for their children, subject to the applicable rules and UAE public policy. That system should not be confused with the Abu Dhabi proposal, but it illustrates the broader principle that a parent’s wishes operate within a legal framework rather than outside it.

The Living Wishes Protocol goes beyond nominating a guardian. It seeks to influence how the guardian approaches decisions after the mother’s death. Whether such instructions could be recognised without restricting the guardian’s independent judgement is a question that would require careful legal consideration.

Would a Guardian Have to Consult ChatGPT?

The protocol appears intended to make consultation part of the guardian’s decision-making process, not to make the AI’s recommendations binding.

That distinction may be crucial. A requirement to consider advice is different from an obligation to follow it. A guardian might consult ChatGPT before changing a child’s school or moving to another country, yet reasonably conclude that the system’s recommendation does not suit the child’s circumstances.

Under the proposed arrangement, the guardian would retain the final decision, and failure to follow the protocol would not automatically invalidate a decision or the guardian’s appointment.

Nevertheless, if consultation is intended to have legal force, the consequences of non-compliance need to be clear. Could a relative challenge a guardian for failing to consult the system? Would the court consider that failure evidence of improper conduct? And what happens if the service is unavailable or produces advice that conflicts with professional guidance?

These questions expose a potential weakness in making a particular technology part of a long-term legal arrangement. A vague obligation may create disputes without providing a meaningful standard against which a guardian’s conduct can be judged.

A more durable approach may be to distinguish the mother’s substantive wishes from the method used to interpret them. Her values and priorities could be preserved in a carefully drafted letter of wishes, while an AI system remains an optional advisory tool rather than the source of a binding obligation.

The Child’s Welfare Must Come First

The most important limitation is that parental preferences cannot automatically take precedence over the child’s welfare as circumstances change.

The proposed protocol reportedly envisages periodic reviews of the child’s health, education, happiness, relationships and changing needs. It also recognises that the child’s own wishes and feelings should carry increasing weight as he grows older.

This is important because a document prepared today may remain relevant for years, during which a child’s needs and views can change substantially. A parent may favour a particular school, country of residence or approach to religious upbringing. Later, the child may have different educational needs, health requirements or preferences about where to live.

The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court identifies the child’s best interests as the primary consideration in contested custody arrangements within civil marriages for non-Muslims. Relevant considerations include physical, emotional and educational needs, the child’s wishes where age and maturity permit, the effect of changes in living arrangements and the risk of harm.

The applicable legal route in an individual case must still be established. However, the wider principle is clear: an AI-generated recommendation cannot replace an assessment of the child’s actual circumstances.

The protocol’s strength lies in its attempt to preserve the mother’s values while allowing flexibility. Its greatest risk would arise if consultation became a substitute for independent judgement or if the guardian felt compelled to follow advice that no longer served the child’s interests.

Can AI Reliably Interpret a Deceased Parent’s Wishes?

Even if a court accepts the general concept, the reliability of the technology presents a separate challenge.

ChatGPT does not possess the deceased parent’s personal knowledge or judgement. Its responses depend on the information supplied, the context of the request and the capabilities of the model in use. It may generate inaccurate information, overlook important facts or interpret ambiguous instructions inconsistently.

A written record of the mother’s values would therefore be essential. Broad statements about parenting philosophy may help a guardian understand her preferences, but they may not resolve difficult questions involving medical treatment, relocation, schooling or family relationships.

Continuity is another concern. An AI service may change its technology, terms or availability over time. The system selected today might not be available when the child reaches adolescence, and a replacement may interpret the same instructions differently.

The protocol should therefore preserve the mother’s original record independently of any software provider. It should also establish a process for reviewing the suitability of the technology and provide an alternative if the service becomes unavailable.

Consultation records might help explain how a guardian reached a decision, but they cannot prove that the advice was correct or that the decision was reasonable. The guardian must remain responsible for evaluating the information and, where necessary, obtaining professional advice.

Child Privacy Creates Another Legal Challenge

The proposal also raises questions about the information a guardian might disclose to an AI provider.

Seeking useful guidance may involve sharing details about a child’s health, education, psychological needs and family relationships. Such information can be sensitive, and its disclosure may create risks beyond the immediate decision.

The UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on Personal Data Protection establishes requirements governing the lawful and secure processing of personal data. Its application to a particular AI service depends on the circumstances and relevant statutory provisions.

The UAE has also enacted Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2025 concerning Child Digital Safety. Article 7 addresses the collection, processing, publication and sharing of personal data belonging to children under 13 by digital platforms, subject to specified safeguards and exceptions. Whether that provision applies to a particular service and use requires a fact-specific assessment.

A parent’s wish to preserve guidance does not automatically justify transferring a child’s personal history to a commercial platform. A workable protocol should specify what information may be shared, who controls access to the mother’s record, how consultation histories are stored and retained, and what happens when the child reaches adulthood.

Sensitive records should not be uploaded unless there is a clear, lawful and necessary reason. Privacy safeguards should be built into the arrangement from the outset, rather than addressed only after the system begins to be used.

Could a Court Reject the AI Clause but Preserve the Will?

The legal consequences of an unsuccessful AI provision would depend on the wording of the instrument and the applicable law.

The reported draft contemplates the possibility that some elements could be placed in a separate letter of wishes rather than the registered will. Such a distinction could be useful because the mother may have valid reasons to document her preferences even if a court does not accept a requirement to consult a particular AI system.

A letter of wishes can explain the parent’s priorities, concerns and hopes without necessarily imposing an enforceable obligation. It can give a guardian valuable context while allowing decisions to adapt to the child’s circumstances.

A formal will should distinguish provisions intended to have legal effect from explanatory material. Whether a disputed clause can be severed without affecting the rest of the instrument would depend on its drafting and the court’s assessment. It should not be assumed that an invalid provision would automatically leave every other part untouched.

Families considering similar arrangements should obtain advice on the appointment of guardians, the status of parental wishes, the relationship between the will and any accompanying document, and the procedure to follow if a guardian disagrees with AI-generated advice.

A New Tool, Not a New Legal Guardian

The Abu Dhabi proposal tests whether estate planning can accommodate AI without transferring human responsibilities to a machine.

Its legal prospects are likely to depend less on the mere mention of ChatGPT than on the substance of the proposed obligation. Voluntary use of AI to help interpret a parent’s recorded wishes is fundamentally different from a clause that purports to compel a guardian to follow automated recommendations.

There is no confirmed judicial approval of the Living Wishes Protocol, and it should not be presented as an established legal precedent. Its eventual treatment under UAE law remains unresolved.

The broader lesson is that technology may help parents preserve their values and assist future carers in understanding them. But the more consequential the decision, the greater the need for clear legal authority, independent human judgement and safeguards for the child.

A parent may be able to leave a record of how they hoped their child would be raised. Whether a court will permit an AI system to become a formally required part of that process is a different question — one that this proposed will has yet to answer.

Oman’s courts and Public Prosecution have begun the 2026-2027 judicial year, with an expanded digital transformation programme, the introduction of electronic inheritance services and continued efforts to improve judicial efficiency and accelerate the resolution of cases.

The new judicial year began after courts completed their general assembly meetings to determine judicial circuits, prepare personnel and facilities, and strengthen administrative and technical readiness. The preparations are intended to streamline proceedings, improve performance and make judicial services more accessible to litigants.

A key development this year is the phased introduction of digital systems for inheritance-related matters across courts. The initiative covers inheritances, estates and the management of orphans’ funds, marking a further shift from paper-based procedures to electronic services. The move is expected to simplify processes, strengthen governance and improve access for beneficiaries.

The programme forms part of the Supreme Judiciary Council’s broader vision of delivering prompt justice, upholding the rule of law and developing a more efficient and flexible judicial system.

Sayyid Mohammed Sultan Al Busaidi, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Judiciary Council, said the beginning of the new judicial year offered an opportunity to build on previous achievements and strengthen the judiciary’s capacity to respond to changing social needs.

He highlighted digital transformation as one of the principal areas of progress, pointing to the wider use of modern technologies, improvements in electronic services and the streamlining of judicial procedures. These measures, he said, had helped improve efficiency, service quality and the speed of case processing.

The previous judicial year also saw the commencement of operations at the Investment and Trade Court, established to provide a specialised forum for commercial and investment disputes and support the country’s expanding business environment.

Al Busaidi also referred to Royal Decree No. 80/2026, which amended the nomenclature of the Public Prosecution. The change reflects its position as a fundamental component of the judicial authority and its responsibilities in administering justice, protecting society and safeguarding rights and freedoms.

Courts Record 177,356 Cases

Figures for the 2025-2026 judicial year show that Oman's courts handled 177,356 cases and issued 126,487 judgments, resulting in an overall adjudication rate of 71%. The average caseload per judge stood at 411 cases.

The Supreme Court recorded an adjudication rate of 87%, delivering judgments in 5,803 of the 6,650 cases before it. Some of its circuits achieved a 100% rate, reflecting their performance in resolving appeals and maintaining consistency in the application of legal principles.

The Courts of Appeal handled 44,189 cases and issued 28,678 judgments, achieving an adjudication rate of 65%.

At the Primary Courts, 88,458 cases were recorded, with 69,208 judgments delivered, representing a rate of 78%. These courts dealt with the largest share of cases across the judicial system.

The figures highlight the volume of work handled by the courts and the continuing emphasis on improving the pace and efficiency of judicial proceedings.

Investment And Trade Court Expands Specialisation

The Investment and Trade Court, which began operations on October 1, 2025, is a central part of the council’s strategy to strengthen judicial specialisation and provide a dedicated forum for commercial and investment disputes.

During the 2025-2026 judicial year, the court issued 4,665 judgments in its Primary Court circuits and 82 judgments in its appellate circuits in newly registered cases.

It also received 25,758 cases transferred to its jurisdiction, of which 17,929 were concluded, giving it a completion rate of 70%.

The specialised court is intended to support investment protection, expedite the resolution of commercial disputes and strengthen confidence in Oman’s business environment.

Enforcement Remains A Key Challenge

The council’s performance figures also highlight the importance of enforcing judgments after they have been delivered.

A total of 73,925 execution requests were recorded during the judicial year, of which 31,929 were executed, representing an overall performance rate of 43%.

Civil execution accounted for 28,527 requests, equivalent to 48% of the reported total, with 13,806 requests executed.

The figures underline the importance of improving enforcement procedures to ensure that successful litigants can secure the practical benefits of court judgments.

Meanwhile, the Directorate General of Judicial Inspection resolved all 308 complaints received during the period, achieving a completion rate of 100%. Inspection activities covered 46 of the 58 courts and 191 of the 221 judges targeted, representing coverage of 86% of the judges subject to inspection.

Digital Services Gain Ground

Digitalisation remains a major pillar of the council’s judicial modernisation programme, with technology increasingly used to automate procedures, manage court records and facilitate access to services.

The Qadha portal had more than 137,000 active users, while over 760,000 cases had been registered electronically. The system also processed more than 29,000 execution requests online, and more than 600,000 judicial files were archived electronically.

The digitisation rate for judicial and justice services reached 89%, reflecting the extent to which electronic systems have been integrated into court operations.

The Tawtheeq system, which supports transactions handled by Notary Public departments, recorded 136,978 transactions during the first half of 2026, of which 121,187 were issued.

Video-call transactions reached 35,109 during the same period, an increase of 163% compared with 2024. Notary Public departments also recorded 8,752 marriages and 2,052 divorces in the first six months of 2026.

The video-call service under Tawtheeq received the award for Best Digital Government Service Provided to Individuals for 2025, recognising the development of remote access to public services.

More Judges And Expanded Training

The council is also investing in national expertise and the development of judicial and administrative personnel. The number of judges reached 432 by the end of the 2025-2026 judicial year, up from 337 in the previous year. Omani nationals accounted for 61% of the judiciary.

Training programmes attracted 2,015 participants, including 617 judicial personnel and 1,398 auxiliary and administrative staff. The completion rate among those targeted for training reached 93%.

These measures form part of the council’s long-term strategic plan for 2024-2040 and its first operational plan, which are aligned with the objectives of Oman Vision 2040.

Focus On Faster And More Accessible Justice

Dr Sheikh Mohammed Saif Al Saadi, a Supreme Court judge and Chairman of the Muscat Court, said the start of the new judicial year was an important opportunity to strengthen judicial and administrative performance.

He attributed the previous year’s record adjudication rates to improvements in digital systems, the redesign of procedures and the expansion of electronic services. These developments had helped simplify processes, reduce litigation times and make access to justice easier for litigants.

Lawyer Dr Said Al Qalhati said the legal profession remained an essential partner in the administration of justice, with lawyers contributing to the protection of rights and freedoms and the upholding of the rule of law through professional independence and integrity.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Judiciary Council plans to continue improving judicial infrastructure, strengthening specialised courts, expanding digital and remote services, developing alternatives to litigation and accelerating the enforcement of judgments.

The broader objective is to build a more efficient, accessible and technology-driven judicial system that can respond to present and future needs while maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

A Sharjah court has rejected a father’s appeal against permission granted to the mother of his two children to travel abroad with them, finding that their safe return to the UAE had fulfilled the purpose of the required guarantee.

The Sharjah Federal First Instance Court upheld the original travel order and directed the father to pay the court fees and expenses.

The case arose from an order allowing the custodial mother to travel abroad with the two children, subject to a legally approved guarantor to ensure their return.

The father said he did not oppose the trip but wanted additional safeguards. He asked the court to place copies of the children’s foreign passports on record, verify their travel documents and examine the guarantor’s identity, residence, financial solvency and legal capacity.

He also sought to retain the children’s passports and Emirates IDs until the relevant conditions had been verified. In addition, he requested details of the travel itinerary, accommodation and return arrangements, as well as clarification of the supervisory role of the relevant social services authority.

The mother’s defence argued that she had completed the authorised trip and returned to the UAE with both children. It said the purpose of the guarantee had been fulfilled, with the children’s passports returned to the father and the guarantor’s passport returned to the guarantor.

Court Upholds Travel Order

The court found that the grievance had been filed within the prescribed legal deadline and was therefore admissible.

Under Article 116(2) of the Personal Status Law, a custodial parent may be permitted to travel with a child for a limited period, subject to a suitable guarantee to ensure the child’s return.

The court said the guarantee was intended to prevent a child from being retained abroad and to protect the other parent’s rights to supervision and follow-up.

As the mother had completed the trip and returned with the children within the authorised period, the court concluded that the guarantee had served its purpose. The additional safeguards sought by the father, including further verification of the guarantor, were no longer necessary.

The court consequently rejected the grievance on its merits, upheld the original travel permission and ordered the father to bear the court fees and expenses.

The ruling highlights the importance of guarantees in securing children’s return from authorised overseas trips, while indicating that objections to travel arrangements may lose their practical relevance once the trip has been completed and the children have safely returned to the UAE.

For many families, separation does not necessarily make life simpler. When parents live in different countries, hold different nationalities or maintain personal and professional interests across borders, a dispute over a child can become considerably more complicated than a conventional custody case.

The UAE, with its large expatriate population and internationally connected families, regularly encounters such disputes. One parent may wish to relocate abroad with a child, while the other fears losing meaningful contact. In other cases, a custody order issued by a foreign court may need to be recognised or enforced in the UAE. Each situation presents legal and practical challenges, requiring the courts to balance parental rights with the central consideration of the child’s welfare, security and stability.

Determining the Applicable Legal Framework

The first question in an international custody dispute is not necessarily which parent should have custody, but which court has jurisdiction and which legal framework applies.

The UAE’s Personal Status Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024, provides the principal statutory framework for personal-status matters, including provisions governing custody and travel with a child in custody. In disputes involving expatriate families, determining the appropriate jurisdiction and applicable law can be particularly important, especially where the parents have different nationalities, the child was born abroad or proceedings have already begun in another country.

These circumstances can create overlapping legal considerations. A parent may seek relief in the UAE while proceedings are under way elsewhere, or a foreign court may have already made decisions concerning custody and access. The existence of a foreign order does not, by itself, resolve every question before a UAE court.

International custody disputes must therefore be assessed beyond the immediate issue of parental entitlement. Jurisdiction, applicable law and the relationship between domestic proceedings and foreign orders can all influence the available legal options and the practical outcome.

Relocation: When Moving Countries Becomes a Legal Issue

Relocation is often the point at which an ordinary custody disagreement develops into a cross-border legal dispute. A parent may wish to move abroad for employment, family support, remarriage or other personal reasons. From that parent’s perspective, the move may offer better opportunities or a more stable home. For the other parent, however, relocation could disrupt visitation arrangements and weaken an established relationship with the child.

The UAE Personal Status Law specifically addresses travel with a child in custody. Under Article 116, a custodial parent may travel outside the UAE with the child with the written approval of the other parent or, where applicable, the guardian over the person. If the required consent is unavailable, the court may authorise travel for periods not exceeding a total of 60 days in a year, subject to an acceptable guarantee securing the child’s return. The court may permit a longer period in specified circumstances, including where the travel serves the child’s interests, is required for treatment or another necessity is established.

These provisions demonstrate that disagreement between parents does not necessarily prevent international travel. However, permission to travel must be considered within the applicable legal conditions, including safeguards intended to secure the child’s return. A proposed move that could substantially alter the existing custody arrangements may raise additional questions requiring careful judicial assessment.

The Child’s Interests at the Centre

Custody disputes can quickly become a contest between parents, with each seeking to protect their own position. The legal assessment, however, must remain focused on the child and the circumstances that will shape their life.

A parent’s preference, financial resources or wish to relocate cannot automatically determine the outcome. The child’s living arrangements, continuity of care, education, healthcare and family relationships may all be relevant when a court considers a proposed change. The practical consequences of moving to another country must also be weighed against the arrangements that would remain in place if the child stayed in the UAE.

Evidence can be decisive in establishing how a proposed relocation would work in practice. A parent seeking permission to travel or move abroad may need to explain the purpose and duration of the proposed stay, accommodation arrangements, schooling and healthcare plans, as well as the means by which regular contact with the other parent would continue. A parent opposing the move, meanwhile, may need to show how relocation could affect the child’s welfare, disrupt established routines or materially undermine the existing parent-child relationship.

Neither position should be assessed in isolation. The strength of a case will depend on its facts, the applicable legal provisions and the evidence presented to the court.

Passports and Practical Safeguards

International custody disputes extend beyond legal arguments about residence and parental responsibility. Control of a child’s passport and the arrangements required for international travel can become equally contentious, particularly when relations between parents have deteriorated.

Article 117 of the UAE Personal Status Law regulates the passport of a child in custody. Among other provisions, it addresses the guardian’s ability to retain the child’s passport, subject to the applicable travel rules, and permits court intervention where necessary, including in cases involving unjustified refusal to hand over the passport when required.

These safeguards underline the practical dimension of family litigation. A custody arrangement may appear clear on paper, yet become difficult to implement if travel documents are withheld or a parent refuses to cooperate. Addressing these issues through clear court orders and workable arrangements can help reduce uncertainty and limit further disputes.

Foreign Judgments and Enforcement

The legal position becomes more complicated when a foreign court has already issued a custody order or another decision concerning the child. A parent arriving in the UAE with such an order may expect it to take immediate effect. Recognition and enforcement, however, are separate legal questions, and the existence of a foreign judgment does not automatically make it enforceable in the UAE.

The UAE legal system provides procedures for dealing with foreign judgments, including in relevant personal-status matters. Before enforcement can take place, the competent court must consider the applicable legal and procedural requirements. The nature of the order, the circumstances in which it was issued and the rules governing its recognition may all be relevant.

Timing can be especially important in these cases. A child may be living in one country while a parent pursues proceedings in another, leaving the family uncertain about which arrangements will ultimately prevail. Delays may affect contact, schooling and day-to-day stability, even as legal proceedings continue. Effective planning must therefore consider not only where a case can be filed, but also where the resulting order will need to be recognised and enforced.

For parents and their legal advisers, this requires a coordinated approach to jurisdiction, evidence and enforcement. A decision obtained in one country may have limited practical value if the steps necessary to implement it in the country where the child lives have not been properly considered.

A Delicate Balance

International child custody disputes involve more than competing claims by parents. They raise questions about a child’s identity, education, stability, family relationships and connections to more than one country. A decision that appears straightforward from one parent’s perspective may have lasting consequences for the child and the wider family.

Where possible, parents should address these issues before disagreements develop into urgent litigation. Clear parenting arrangements, written travel permissions, communication plans and carefully drafted consent terms can reduce the scope for misunderstanding. Such arrangements should also anticipate foreseeable changes, including relocation, extended travel and the need to maintain contact when parents live in different jurisdictions.

Conclusion

For legal practitioners, cross-border custody disputes demand a broader approach than a conventional family law case. Effective representation may require an understanding of personal-status law, jurisdiction, evidence, international enforcement and practical safeguards, with each element considered in relation to the others.

As international mobility increases, children may develop close ties to several countries from an early age. The legal challenge is not simply to determine where a child should live, but to ensure that decisions involving different jurisdictions are handled responsibly and consistently, with the child’s welfare remaining the central consideration.

Domestic violence cases registered with the Public Prosecution fell by 36 per cent during the first six months of the Domestic Violence Protection Law, Justice Minister Counselor Nasser Al-Sumait said. He attributed the decline to the new legislation, which strengthens protection for vulnerable family members.

Speaking to Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), Al-Sumait said 646 cases were registered between March 15 and September 13, 2026, down by 365 from the 1,011 cases recorded during the same period in 2025.

He linked the decline to Decree-Law No. 11 of 2026, which prohibits waivers, reconciliation and pardons in certain domestic violence and sexual abuse cases. However, he stressed that the reduction in reported cases did not mean the problem had been resolved. Every domestic violence case, he said, posed a threat to family stability and required serious attention.

The minister said the Ministry of Justice would continue to monitor relevant indicators and assess the law’s effectiveness. He described family protection as a shared national responsibility, adding that the legislation would be evaluated and developed in light of its effectiveness in reducing crime and promoting security and stability.

The Cabinet approved the 31-article draft decree-law on February 10, 2026, and the legislation was published in the Official Gazette in mid-March. It aims to strengthen family protection while safeguarding justice, dignity and stability.

A Sharjah woman sought a divorce because her husband preferred staying at home to going out for recreational activities or travelling, according to a case shared by a senior family guidance official at Sharjah Courts.

Dr Radhia Hassan Al Raisi, Director of the Family Guidance Department at Sharjah Courts, recounted the case during an appearance on Sharjah TV’s Qadiya Lil Hiwar (An Issue for Discussion). She said the woman had approached the family guidance service, frustrated that her husband was reluctant to accompany her on trips or outings.

However, Al Raisi said the husband had several positive qualities. He was kind, generous, patient and peaceful, and neither hurt nor humiliated his wife. His preference for a quiet life at home was the main source of disagreement.

Consider The Bigger Picture

Al Raisi advised the woman to look beyond this difference and recognise the positive aspects of her marriage.

If her husband was unwilling to go out, she could pursue recreational activities with her children or spend time with her parents and siblings, she suggested.

Differences in lifestyle and attitudes towards leisure can cause frustration between spouses, but they do not necessarily have to result in the breakdown of a marriage, she said.

Al Raisi cautioned against allowing every disagreement to escalate into a family or legal dispute, particularly when there are no deeper problems affecting the relationship.

Preserving Family Stability

According to Al Raisi, the marriage she described was otherwise stable, with no serious or complex issues threatening the relationship.

She emphasised that differences in personality, preferences and lifestyle are a natural part of married life. Couples should learn to accommodate such differences rather than allow manageable disagreements to undermine family stability.

The case, drawn from her experience in family guidance, highlighted the importance of perspective, understanding and compromise in marriage.

Rather than focusing solely on what a partner does not provide, spouses should recognise the qualities that strengthen their relationship and contribute to a stable family life, she said.

A 41-year-old Asian man has been sentenced to six months in prison and fined Dh5,000 after an Ajman court found him guilty of assaulting a woman and causing injuries that temporarily prevented her from carrying out her normal personal activities.

The Ajman Federal Court of First Instance, Third Misdemeanour Circuit, also ordered the defendant to pay court fees and referred the woman’s claim for compensation to the competent Civil Court.

Woman Reports Assault To Police

The case originated on January 30, 2026, when the woman reported to Ajman Police that the defendant had physically assaulted her.

A subsequent medical examination documented injuries sustained in the incident and found that they had resulted in temporary incapacity lasting less than 20 days.

The Public Prosecution charged the man with intentionally assaulting the woman and causing injuries that prevented her from carrying out her normal personal activities during that period.

Court Examines Evidence

According to the case records, the defendant initially admitted to the assault during police questioning but subsequently denied the charge during the Public Prosecution investigation. He maintained his denial when appearing before the court through a remote video hearing.

The court examined the woman’s statements, witness testimony, police and prosecution records, and the medical report documenting her injuries.

After assessing the evidence, the court found the defendant guilty. It took into account the consistency of the woman’s account, the medical findings and the defendant’s initial statement to police before he later denied the allegation.

Compensation Claim Sent To Civil Court

The woman’s legal representatives filed a civil claim seeking provisional compensation for the physical, material and moral harm allegedly caused by the assault.

The criminal proceedings did not determine the full extent or monetary value of the damages claimed. The court held that these matters required a separate civil assessment and referred the compensation claim to the competent Civil Court under Article 26 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

The Civil Court will schedule a hearing and notify the parties before examining the claim.

The criminal judgment imposes a six-month prison term, a Dh5,000 fine and court fees. Any compensation awarded for the alleged physical, material or moral damages will be determined separately through the civil proceedings.