The court considered whether it was in the best interests of a 15-year-old boy with special needs to remain in Local Authority care under a final care order or to be placed with his grandmother. While recognising the grandmother's cultural understanding and emotional connection, the court found her capacity to meet the boy’s complex needs insufficient. The judgment highlighted the importance of safety, welfare, and stability in care decisions, granting limited contact to the grandmother to maintain emotional ties.

The court assessed an application for the summary return of a child to China. The mother argued for the return based on the child's established life and best interests, while the father raised concerns about integration into her new routine in England and legal safeguards in China. The court dismissed the application, ruling that the child's welfare required proceedings to continue in England due to concerns about enforcement of protections in China and the need for a thorough welfare assessment.

The High Court considered whether a child should be summarily returned to a non-Hague Convention country following an application by the mother. The court dismissed the application, concluding that the child’s welfare would be better served by remaining in England pending further welfare proceedings. The judgment highlighted the limitations of the non-Hague framework in ensuring cross-border contact and safeguarding long-term welfare.

The court addressed the welfare needs of four children of Ugandan origin now residing in England in relation to their contact with their father, the inclusion of paternal names, and parental responsibility. It prioritised the children's emotional stability, approving limited direct contact in England and weekly video calls while rejecting direct contact in Uganda. The court emphasised the need for cooperative parenting to minimise future conflict and partly upheld the request for including paternal names.

The court examined whether it was in the best interests of a 14-year-old boy to remain in Ghana, where he had been taken without his consent by his parents. Despite the breach of trust, the court found that the risks he faced in the UK, including potential gang violence, outweighed his dissatisfaction with living in Ghana. The judgment emphasised the welfare principle and concluded that his continued residence in Ghana was in his best interests.

The court considered an application for an antisuit injunction to halt proceedings in India concerning child maintenance and family disputes. It found England to be the natural forum for the primary issues but declined to grant the injunction, ruling that the foreign proceedings were neither vexatious nor oppressive. The judgment highlighted the strain of concurrent litigation on limited financial resources and clarified the jurisdictional approach in international family law disputes.

The court considered whether life-saving medical treatment could be authorised for a 14-month-old child against parental opposition. Weighing expert medical evidence, ethical principles, and the parents' religious objections, the court concluded that the surgery was in the child's best interests. The case underscores the primacy of a child's welfare in medical treatment decisions, even when parental concerns conflict.

The High Court considered whether two children, retained by their mother in the UK after a holiday, should be returned to Dubai. The decision prioritised the children's welfare and stability, highlighting their integration in England and concerns over unstable circumstances upon return to Dubai. The court found that the father’s proposed support arrangements were insufficient to safeguard the children's best interests, ultimately refusing the return order.

The court addressed a father's application for the summary return of his children to Nigeria and considered the habitual residence of the children amidst allegations of domestic abuse. Procedural delays caused by the mother's legal team resulted in the adjournment of a scheduled hearing. The court found the mother's solicitors negligent for failing to comply with procedural obligations, and a wasted costs order was imposed against the firm to account for the incurred costs.

The court addressed the adoption of two children born through an unlawful commercial surrogacy arrangement in Northern Cyprus. Despite ethical and legal concerns surrounding the applicants' actions, the court found that the children's welfare was paramount. The judgment emphasised statutory requirements and public policy considerations while focusing on providing the children with legal and familial stability through adoption orders.