Background:
A man who lives in Abu Dhabi petitioned the court of personal status in Dubai claiming that his wife had been denying him the opportunity to see his children. He divorced his wife and requested the court to grant him a visitation with his five children (four children are older than 4 years old, and the other son is 2 years old). He wanted to spend the night with the four older children on Fridays between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. the following day and visit his youngest son on Fridays between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. without spending the night. He also asked the court to compel his wife to provide a mobile phone for his eldest 8-year-old son.
Court of First Instance Ruling: The court ruled as follows:
The father is permitted to visit the four older children (over4 years old) and stay overnight with them every Friday from 5 p.m. until 5 p.m. the following day. He may visit his youngest son every Friday from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. Visitation shall begin with picking up the children from the wife’s residence and end with returning them to the same location. Alternatively, the enforcement judge may determine another location for visitation and handover upon agreement by both parties.
All other requests were rejected.
Court of Appeal Findings:
Both parties appealed the ruling, but the court upheld the initial judgment.
Findings of Court of Cassation: The wife filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation (Case No. 717/2025) on the basis of incorrect interpretation of the law and lack of logic. She claimed that the children leave school at 1 p.m. on Fridays and are emotionally bound to her, so it is not in their best interest to keep them away for long periods of time, which the lower court did not take into consideration.
The Court of Cassation partially agreed with this argument. In accordance with Article 154 of the Personal Status Law, after divorce, when one parent retains custody and the children reside with them, the other parent holds the right to visit, care for, and accompany the child. However, the parent wishing to visit must do so at the child's place of residence. Visitation must not interfere with the child’s rights, welfare, studies, or school attendance; therefore, contact and visits must be kept within reasonable limits.
The authority to decide the specifics of child visitation is a matter of fact that rests with the Court of First Instance, which must make its determination on reasonable grounds present in the case file. In this instance, the lower court did not give due weight to the significant geographic distance between the parents where the father resides in Abu Dhabi. Imposing a weekly commute of 200 kilometers on the children within a single day is contrary to their welfare and would subject them to excessive strain. Furthermore, the system that alienates the youngest child, with his siblings whenever they are visiting deprives him of the feeling of emotional safety and care that the presence of his siblings provides.
After taking these factors into consideration, the court held that there was a need to have the original judgment changed. Accordingly, the father is granted visitation with all four older children on the first weekend of each month, commencing Friday at 5:00 p.m. and concluding Saturday at 7:00 p.m., which includes an overnight stay. For the youngest son, visitation is scheduled separately on Saturdays from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The remainder of the initial judgment was left unchanged and remains in effect.
Finally, the best interest and welfare of the child is the main factor that should be taken into account when the court decides on the visitation rights of the child and supersedes the visitation rights of a parent.
Conclusion:
The Court held that compelling the children to travel weekly between Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and from Abu Dhabi back to Dubai, is contrary to their best interests, as it would subject them to exhaustion by requiring them to cover a distance exceeding 200 kilometers round-trip within a 24-hour period each week. Moreover, separating the visitation schedule by allowing the youngest child, to visit alone without his siblings would deprive him of emotional reassurance, psychological stability, and social comfort during visitation. Accordingly, the contested judgment is tainted by flawed reasoning and insufficient justification, warranting its reversal.