Cambridge Family Law Practice

The father of an 11-year-old girl was jailed for contempt of court after ignoring multiple court orders to return his daughter to England, having abducted her to Iran some 19 months earlier.

AA v XX concerned a couple from Iran. The father was an ethnic Kurd and the mother came from the Western Azerbaijan Province. Their daughter, referred to as B, is now 11 years old. In 2020, the father left Iran and travelled to the UK, entering the country illegally. He claimed asylum and this was eventually granted in 2023. He was then able to work. The following year the wife travelled over to the UK as his spouse, along with B.

In January 2024, the mother and B returned to Iran for a holiday. However, as their flight landed and the mother and B were leaving Tehran airport, events took an alarming turn when the mother was confronted at gunpoint by the father’s brother, B’s paternal uncle. He took B and fled. The mother has not seen her child since.

The mother immediately returned to the UK, hoping to secure the return of her daughter by legal means. Crucially, Iran is not a member of the Hague Convention, an international treaty which provides a legal process for the swift return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained in another member country. As such, there was no ready-made means to secure the child’s direct return. Instead, the mother applied for B to be made a ward of court. The father, still resident in the UK, was summoned to court and ordered to arrange for his daughter’s return, and also to allow contact between mother and daughter.

Since then, more than a dozen hearings have taken place. Whilst the father attended every hearing, he consistently ignored each of the court orders issued.

Finally, the mother applied for the father to be sent to prison for failure to obey previous court orders concerning B, which ultimately constitutes contempt of court. In August 2025, the case came before Mrs Justice Lieven in the High Court.

By this point in the proceedings, the father had been disruptive, intimidating and demanding at previous hearings. Mrs Justice Lieven had ordered for security to attend the hearing over concerns for the safety of court staff and counsel, such was the conduct at many of the hearings before.

The Judge had warned the father he was not only at serious risk of being sent to prison, but that if he were sent to prison, it could have an impact on his immigration status.

Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that committal to prison for six months was appropriate. She determined that the father was guilty of contempt of court after failing to obey orders requiring him to arrange for his daughter’s return to the UK. She explained:

“I have come to this conclusion for two reasons, the first being the history of this matter, which indicates that such sentence is the only hope of compliance and of securing B’s return. The father has been given numerous opportunities to return B but has ignored them…. His attitude throughout is that he will only comply with orders on his own terms. Secondly, that a custodial sentence is required to show the court’s displeasure about what have been complete and deliberate breaches of court orders both in securing B’s return and taking the required steps to secure return and provide for indirect contact.”

Mrs Justice Lieven continued:

“An aggravating feature of the father’s conduct is that he removed a 9-year-old child by force. I can only assume on the facts that the father was involved in the decision to remove B at the airport in Tehran and to retain her in Iran. B has been kept away from her mother for 19 months. Without being overly emotive, this is an act of extreme cruelty to B and to the mother.

I have reached the conclusion that the only way to get the father to appreciate the seriousness of the matter, and to comply, is to make an immediate order of imprisonment.”

Emma Wager of Cambridge Family Law Practice observes:

“This is a dramatic case which vividly illustrates just how fraught and emotive child abduction by parents can be. Whilst imprisonment for contempt of court is not something that is ordered lightly by the court, this case shows that the courts can and will eventually lose patience and resort to imprisonment in appropriate circumstances.

It is notable that the judge concluded by explaining “If the father complies and secures the return of B to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, he can apply back to court to purge his contempt”. It is therefore hoped that the sentencing of the father will bring about a return of B and for her to be able to re-establish a relationship with her mother.”

Read the full ruling here.