UK: Mirage Or Remedy?

Last Updated: 1 May 2015
Article by Gemma Vines

Increasingly, family lawyers are instructed by parents wishing to take their child abroad or, conversely, the other parent who objects to their child being taken abroad for fear of the child not being returned. Most often a dispute arises in families with international connections where a parent wishes to take their child abroad to a country with which they have links, in most cases their home country, to visit relatives. These are difficult and emotive cases. Not surprisingly, following separation and divorce, trust between the parents is often damaged, communication diminished and the potential for cooperation reduced. Consequently, it is not unusual for the left-behind parent to become anxious and suspicious about whether the other parent's plans to take the child abroad on holiday are in fact plans to abscond abroad permanently without returning.

The situation becomes even more complex in circumstances where a parent wishes to take a child to a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention). Unsurprisingly, the courts must, and indeed do, take applications for leave to remove to such countries extremely seriously since the remedies available to secure the return of a child are, by comparison, much more limited. In some countries, notably Islamic countries, it may be impossible to secure a child's return. In deciding these cases, therefore, the courts must balance the risks of the child not being returned against the benefit to that child of seeing the world. More specifically, in cases involving children with a foreign parent, the court will consider the importance of the child learning about their overseas heritage and having the opportunity to spend time with their extended family.

'Fundamental to the concept of a mirror order is that the foreign court shall have the right and, more importantly, the obligation to enforce the terms contained in the order.'

The courts' approach

In Re R [2013] the court said (para 23):

The overriding consideration for the court in deciding whether to allow a parent to take a child to a non-Hague Convention country is whether the making of that order would be in the best interests of the child. Where (as in most cases) there is some risk of abduction and an obvious detriment to the child if that risk were to materialise, the court has to be positively satisfied that the advantages to the child of her visiting that country outweigh the risks to her welfare which the visit will entail. This will therefore routinely involve the court in investigating what safeguards can be put in place to minimise the risk of retention and to secure the child's return if that transpires. Those safeguards should be capable of having a real and tangible effect in the jurisdiction in which they are to operate and be capable of being easily accessed by the UK-based parent.

As is evident from this passage in Re R, the courts will assume that there will invariably be some risk of abduction, particularly where the parent is wishing to take a child to a non-Hague Convention country. Consequently, the courts' assessment of such cases will inevitably focus on the degree of risk and what safeguards can be put in place.

Mirror orders as a safeguard

Over time, the courts have proved themselves inventive, resourceful and robust in devising protective safeguards to minimise the risk of retention and to secure the child's return in that event. For example, the court may make directions for a financial bond to be paid, a notarised agreement to be made, undertakings to be given or copy air tickets to be provided. In an increasing number of cases however, the courts will also require the parent wishing to take the child abroad to first obtain a mirror order from a court in the foreign jurisdiction of travel that reflects exactly the same terms as the English order being mirrored. Fundamental to the concept of a mirror order is that the foreign court shall have the right and, more importantly, the obligation to enforce the terms contained in the order, in particular, to ensure the prompt return of the child at the end of a defined period of time.

A good example of a case where mirror orders were used successfully is Re T [1998], where the court was asked to look at whether the child, aged six, should have holiday staying contact with the father in Cairo (which the mother strongly resisted, fearing non-return), and, if so, on what terms, and whether 'mirror orders' were necessary to exclude the risk of an unlawful retention. The mother was English and the father Egyptian, living in Cairo. Having heard evidence from experts in Egyptian and Arabic law, the court held that staying contact was in the child's interests to allow her to experience proper exposure to her Egyptian heritage, maintain relations with her extended family in Egypt and extend her knowledge of the Muslim religion. Consequently, the court made an order for there to be staying contact in Egypt, subject to the parties applying for a mirror order in the Cairo court confirming:

  • the child's residence in England;
  • that the child would be returned to England at the end of any period of contact there; and
  • that jurisdiction in relation to the child should be with the Family Division of the English court.

This was in addition to a number of other safeguarding provisions including that the father, paternal grandmother and mother enter into a notarised agreement clarifying that the child would live with the mother in England, the child would leave Egypt after contact in that country and the father would place no obstacle in the way.

It is critical for the court to be sure that there is jurisdiction in the relevant foreign country for mirror orders to be granted, and that it will subsequently be enforced.


While a mirror order may be helpful in many cases, it will not be appropriate in all cases and nor should they be considered a one-way ticket to obtain the court's permission for temporary leave to remove. The viability of a mirror order varies substantially from country to country and therefore, it is critical for the court to be sure that there is jurisdiction in the relevant foreign country for mirror orders to be granted, and that it will subsequently be enforced.

In many states there is no such thing as a mirror order or order 'in like' terms. There may be concepts such as 'friendly settlement' arrangements whereby the parents can agree to lodge a consent order in the foreign country that will be enforceable. In Indonesia, for example, a foreign order that fulfils basic conditions of fairness, ie that both parties were heard in England, enables the court to enforce it as it would any other foreign order. Conversely, various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, eg Majoo v Majoo [2011], make it clear that the courts in India will not allow mirror orders to be entered into in child custody matters and that they will always conduct a full plenary review of the child's best interests (which almost invariably equate to a decision that the child, who by the time of the ultimate decision has typically been in India for some years, should remain in India). In Islamic countries, the difficulties are different and much more complex. It may be impossible to enforce an order at all if the order is outside what is permissible under shari'ah law.

Importance of expert evidence

Consequently, the court will normally proceed on the basis that expert evidence is necessary regarding the practices and laws in the foreign jurisdiction and confirming the enforceability of mirror orders in that jurisdiction. In Re R the court said that (para 23):

Although, in common with Black LJ in Re M [Re M [2010]], we do not say that no application of this category can proceed in the absence of expert evidence, we consider that there is a need in most cases for the effectiveness of any suggested safeguard to be established by competent and complete expert evidence which deals specifically and in detail with that issue. If in doubt the court should err on the side of caution and refuse to make the order. If the judge decides to proceed in the absence of expert evidence, then very clear reasons are required to justify such a course.

In Re AB [2014] the applicant mother was refused permission to temporarily remove her child, aged six, from the jurisdiction to India for three weeks to visit relatives on the basis that, if a breach occurred, the expert evidence stated very clearly the enormous challenges the father would face in trying to secure the child's return. This was notwithstanding that the court had assessed the likelihood of the mother breaching court orders as 'low to medium' and recognised the benefit to the child in being able to meet his extended family in India. Crucially, the safeguards offered by the mother were insufficient. In particular, the expert evidence made it clear that it was not possible to obtain a mirror order in India and the English court's order would not be binding there.

In Re P [2000] the English court itself faced jurisdictional difficulties in making a mirror order in England as ordered by the court in the US. Technical issues presented themselves in making an order under s8, Children Act 1989 as the child was habitually resident in the US not England, and was not present in England on that date as required by s3, Family Law Act 1986. Not wishing to frustrate such a beneficial procedure, the court held that as a matter of common sense, comity and public policy, the High Court should have the ability to make the mirror order. Other foreign courts may not however be so eager to stretch the boundaries of their jurisdiction so as to honour mirror orders on invitation by the court in England and Wales.


In addition to the viability and enforceability of a mirror order in the foreign jurisdiction, a further issue for consideration is the stage at which the mirror order can be obtained. In some jurisdictions it is not possible to obtain a mirror order before travel and therefore their availability may be of little comfort to the left-behind parent. Further, even if a mirror order is put into place, there may also be circumstances in which, once registered, the parent taking the child abroad could then apply to discharge or vary the order once in the foreign jurisdiction. Both of these issues were considered in Re R, where the expert evidence in respect of Kenyan law was that a mirror order from the Kenyan court would have to be obtained once the child was in Kenya and that there could be an application for the discharge or variation by the mother.

The parties' means

Consideration should also be given to the parties' means when considering the practicality of mirror orders. This is not only due to the expense of instructing a foreign lawyer and the legal costs generally associated with putting the order in place, but moreover, the expense of enforcing the mirror order in the foreign jurisdiction should the breach occur. This can often be a lengthy and expensive process and should therefore be explored fully at the outset.

In some jurisdictions it is not possible to obtain a mirror order before travel and therefore their availability may be of little comfort to the left-behind parent.


A further limitation of mirror orders that is often overlooked is that they do not prevent an onward removal to another jurisdiction. So for example, a parent who has obtained the court's permission to temporarily remove their child from this jurisdiction on the condition that mirror orders are put in place, and who subsequently obtains and registers that mirror order, could then, on arrival in the foreign jurisdiction, abscond with the child to another jurisdiction. This may be particularly easy in countries where border controls are lax or even non-existent. The left-behind parent is then faced with the prospect of trying to secure the child's return in the state where the child is now present and where there is no mirror order in force.


If there is jurisdiction in the relevant foreign country for mirror orders to be granted, and evidence that they will subsequently be enforced, then this will undoubtedly bolster an application for temporary leave to remove. However bear in mind that it is by no means a guarantee that mirror orders will always be available and, in any event, the limitations of these orders must always be fully considered.

When bringing an application on behalf of a parent wishing to take their child abroad to a foreign jurisdiction (and indeed when acting for the parent opposing such an application), it is crucial to give early consideration to obtaining expert evidence, in order to look at the specific laws, procedures, customs and practices concerning international family law of the specific country or countries that the child is to visit or may be taken and establish the viability and enforceability of mirror orders in the foreign country of travel.

Mirror orders should not be considered in isolation but may be part of a useful package of safeguarding measures depending on the circumstances and, in particular, the foreign country of travel. A useful 'menu' of potential safeguards can be found in DS v RS [2009] and includes:

  • undertakings to bring a child back on a defined day;
  • a requirement for a passport and travel visa to be lodged with the British High Commission in the holiday destination;
  • a declaration as to the child's habitual residence; and
  • a 'bond' for a sum of money to be held in a secure location and forfeited in the event of a non-return, or, as in Re S and O [2009] (where the parties had insufficient means to provide a bond), an undertaking providing for the parent to forfeit an interest in the family home in the event of a non-return.

Re AB (a child: temporary leave to remove from jurisdiction: expert evidence)

[2014] EWHC 2758 (Fam) DS v RS

[2009] EWHC 1594 (Fam)

Re M (a child) (removal from jurisdiction: expert evidence)

[2010] EWCA Civ 888

Majoo v Majoo

[2011] INSC 515

Re P (a child: mirror orders)

[2000] 1 FLR 435

Re R (a child) (prohibited steps order)

[2013] EWCA Civ 1115

Re S and O (temporary removal from jurisdiction)

[2009] Fam Law 114

Re T (a minor) (contact: non-convention country)

[1998] 3 FCR 574

Previously published in the Family Law Journal April 2015

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.