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
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions