Flight attendant mother loses custody in Dubai ruling

Dubai: A mother has lost custody of her two daughters after Dubai’s highest court ruled that the children’s welfare must take precedence over the interests of either parent, affirming a decision to transfer their care to their father.

In a final judgment, the Dubai Court of Cassation rejected the mother’s appeal, finding no legal fault in an earlier ruling that had granted her a divorce for harm but awarded custody of the children to the father.

The court made clear that while a mother’s employment does not automatically disqualify her from custody, it becomes a decisive factor when it conflicts with the welfare of the children. The overriding test, the court stressed, is the best interests of the child — not the personal circumstances or preferences of either parent.

The dispute dates back to early 2025, when both parents filed personal status claims in Dubai.

The mother sought a divorce, confirmation of her custody rights and a range of financial entitlements. The father, in a separate case, also sought divorce, custody of the two daughters and the removal of related maintenance obligations.

Initially, a lower court dismissed both claims. However, the Court of Appeal later intervened, granting the divorce, awarding the mother her deferred dowry and housing-related alimony during the waiting period, but transferring custody of the children to the father.

The mother challenged the ruling before the emirate’s highest court, but the Court of Cassation upheld the decision, citing the nature of her work as a flight attendant.

The judgment noted that her job required her to travel frequently and remain away from home for periods of up to 10 days — a pattern the court found incompatible with the level of continuous care expected from a custodial parent.

The court also relied on findings from a custody committee, which concluded that the children’s best interests would be better served under the father’s care. He was found to be consistently present and able to supervise their daily needs, with additional support from his sister.

Judges further ruled that the mother’s reliance on a nanny did not alter the legal position, emphasising that custody requires direct, ongoing parental care rather than intermittent supervision.

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces a long-standing principle in UAE family law: that custody is not an automatic right.

Dr Hasan Elhais, legal consultant at Amal Al Rashedi Lawyers and Legal Consultants, said the judgment underscores that the child’s wellbeing remains the court’s primary concern.

“The judgment makes clear that custody is not treated as an automatic right belonging to either parent,” he said. “The court will always assess where the child’s welfare is best protected and whether the custodian can provide stable, continuous care.”

He added that the case is particularly significant in clarifying the role of employment in custody decisions.

“The court did not say that a working mother loses custody simply because she has a job,” Dr Elhais explained. “What it said is that the full circumstances must be examined — including whether repeated travel or prolonged absence disrupts the child’s routine, supervision and emotional stability.”

Dr Elhais also highlighted the importance of social and custody committee reports in such cases, noting that courts place considerable weight on these assessments.

“In cases involving young children, the court looks at who is consistently available, who can meet day-to-day needs, and whether the arrangement offers stability,” he said.

He added that UAE courts retain broad discretion in custody disputes, assessing each case on its facts rather than applying rigid rules.

“The broader message is that the court is focused on the child, not on punishing one parent or rewarding the other,” he said. “If the evidence shows the child’s welfare is better served with the other parent, the court will order that outcome.”

The Court of Cassation ultimately dismissed the mother’s appeal, confirming that the children’s best interests outweighed her claim to custody and cementing the transfer of care to the father.