Father loses bid to block child’s travel after withholding passport

The Al Madam Court of First Instance has rejected a father’s objection to a judicial order permitting his four-year-old daughter to travel abroad with her custodian, after ruling that his failure to comply with the court’s instructions caused the travel date to lapse, rendering the objection legally void.

The Personal Status Circuit found that the father did not hand over the child’s passport within the timeframe specified by the court, which led to the cancellation of the trip and the expiry of the travel permit. As a result, the court held that the objection no longer had a valid subject matter.

Court records show that the dispute arose after the court granted the child’s mother, who is the legal custodian, permission to travel with the minor to Jordan for a period of six days, subject to specific conditions. The order required the mother to bear all travel-related expenses and directed the father to hand over the child’s passport two days prior to departure, with the document to be returned following their return to the UAE.

The father later filed an objection seeking to revoke the travel permit, arguing that the trip was not medically necessary and was not linked to any emergency that would justify taking the child outside the country. He also claimed that the custodian had not coordinated with him prior to requesting the permit and suggested that she could travel alone while the child remained in his care.

He further argued that the travel order infringed on his court-established visitation rights, stating that the permit deprived him of his legal right to see his daughter during the travel period without legitimate justification. He also contended that the permit was issued without urgent necessity and without legal guarantees ensuring the child’s return.

In response, the mother informed the court that the travel could not take place because the father had repeatedly refused to surrender the child’s passport, despite multiple attempts to execute the court’s order. She stated that his refusal resulted in the cancellation of travel arrangements and caused her financial loss and emotional distress.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the travel period specified in the original order had already elapsed by the time the objection was reviewed. The court stressed that judicial objections must relate to an existing and effective legal subject and that a party cannot seek relief against an order whose execution was obstructed by that same party.

The court further held that failure to comply with judicial orders within their prescribed timeframes does not create legal entitlement for the non-compliant party, nor does it revive an order whose effects have expired.

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