Family Court refuses to delay children’s Egypt relocation case for father’s asylum appeal

The Family Court at Nottingham refused a father's request to adjourn a mother's plan to relocate children to Egypt until his asylum appeal had run its course, a question relevant to parents in similar disputes.

In Re X, Y and Z (Children) (International Relocation: Pending Asylum Claim) [2026] EWFC 282 (B), District Judge Anthony ruled in the Family Court at Nottingham. The judgment is dated 7 August 2026, after hearings on 20 July and 5 August 2026. The family is anonymised.

Background

The children are aged 16, 12 and 6 and live with their mother. The family are Egyptian nationals who came to the UK in August 2022 on student visas. The father claimed asylum in September 2023, with the mother and children as dependants. The parents separated in July 2024. The Secretary of State refused the claim, and the mother's own claim was also refused. She did not appeal and wishes to return to Egypt with the children.

The father appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for himself and the children. He also applied to the Family Court in July 2024 for a child arrangements order and a prohibited steps order to stop the move. A prohibited steps order was made in October 2024. The case moved between several family courts and was held back more than once to await the asylum appeal. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal in a decision dated 2 July 2026. The father has applied to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for permission to appeal.

The issues and the adjournment application

The parties agreed the issues: with whom the children should live, time with the other parent, education, and the proposed relocation to Egypt.

At the final hearing on 20 July 2026 the father applied to adjourn for a further six to twelve months to await the Upper Tribunal. The mother and the children's guardian objected.

The decision

The judge refused the adjournment, giving two reasons. First, delay was not in the children's best interests. Second, although a permission application was outstanding, the First-tier Tribunal's decision had considered risk on return to Egypt only for the father, not the children. The risk to the children was therefore a matter the Family Court would have to consider on all the available evidence.

The legal framework

The judgment sets out the following:

• Sections 77 and 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These bar removal, or a requirement to leave under the Immigration Acts, while an asylum claim or appeal is pending.
• Re K (Children) [2025] EWHC 450 (Fam). The High Court held that immigration and asylum law no longer prevents it implementing a return decision before an asylum claim is determined, provided non-refoulement is upheld.
• SSHD v Suffolk County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 731. The Court of Appeal held that First-tier Tribunal decisions do not have precedential effect in family proceedings.
• The London Borough of Z v A Mother and others [2026] EWFC 118 (B). This Family Court decision held that the Family Court's enquiry into risk is much wider than an asylum assessment.
• The relocation authorities, including Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 and Re C (Internal Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305. In Re C the Court of Appeal held that the only principle is that the child's welfare is paramount, and that guidance such as Payne is not to be applied rigidly.

Sources

• X, Y and Z (Children) (International Relocation: Pending Asylum Claim), Re [2026] EWFC 282 (B), Family Court at Nottingham, 7 August 2026