International child-abduction litigation involving Pakistan presents a recurring difficulty: the legal system must distinguish between two very different questions.
One is:
Who should ultimately have custody of the child?
The other is:
Was the child wrongfully removed or retained, and should the child first be returned to the country of habitual residence?
Those questions are not interchangeable.
A significant 2026 decision from Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court illustrates why the distinction matters.
The decision arose from litigation involving a child taken from North Carolina to Pakistan and addresses foreign custody orders, the finality of prior return orders, and the role of the Hague Convention in international custody disputes.
It also raises an important question about how Pakistani courts should apply the Convention’s provisions concerning children who have become settled in a new environment.
The Case Began in North Carolina
The child at issue had been living in North Carolina before being taken to Karachi.
There was already a North Carolina custody order, and the removal occurred contrary to that order.
After the child arrived in Pakistan, the mother commenced guardianship proceedings there.
In 2024, the High Court of Sindh ordered the child returned to North Carolina.
Significantly, that return was not ordered as relief under the Hague Convention. The Pakistani court instead relied upon the existing North Carolina custody order and directed that it be implemented.
The child was returned to the United States.
The litigation nevertheless continued.
A Later Pakistani Order Attempted to Reverse Course
In March 2026, another judge of the High Court of Sindh took a very different approach.
Although the earlier return order had already been carried out, the later court overturned that disposition and initiated contempt proceedings against the father based upon his failure to bring the child back to Pakistan.
That created an unusual international procedural conflict.
A Pakistani court had ordered the child’s return to North Carolina.
The return had occurred.
A subsequent proceeding then attempted, in substance, to undo the consequences of the previously completed order.
The dispute eventually reached Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court.
The Federal Constitutional Court Restored Finality
In September 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court set aside the March 2026 Sindh High Court order in Muhammad Faraaz Shaikh & another v. Javeria Shahani & others, F.C.P.L.A. No. 1183 of 2026.
The Court concluded that the earlier 2024 order had attained finality and had already been implemented.
For international family-law practitioners, that part of the decision is important.
Cross-border custody litigation becomes extraordinarily unstable when courts in different jurisdictions—or different proceedings within the same jurisdiction—revisit orders that have already become final and have already been acted upon.
Parents need to know whether an international custody determination can actually be relied upon.
Finality matters.
The Court Also Addressed Foreign Custody Cases More Broadly
The Federal Constitutional Court provided guidance for Pakistani courts dealing with international custody disputes.
Among the considerations identified were:
- the jurisdiction exercised by the foreign court;
- whether the foreign proceeding complied with relevant principles of private international law;
- whether the foreign judgment was consistent with natural justice;
- whether fraud affected the foreign proceeding;
- whether the child’s removal or retention violated a foreign law, order, decision, or lawful agreement;
- where the child was habitually residing;
- whether return to that country should occur; and
- whether custody should remain undecided until any applicable Hague return issue has first been addressed.
That framework reflects an important reality.
An international custody case cannot always be analyzed as though the family and litigation existed only within Pakistan.
Foreign jurisdiction, foreign orders, habitual residence, and the circumstances of removal may all be central.
The “Settled Child” Issue Requires Care
One part of the decision deserves particular attention.
The Court’s guidance appears to suggest that, unless a child is found to be settled, the child should be returned to the country of habitual residence.
That formulation risks oversimplifying Article 12 of the Hague Convention.
Article 12 does not create a general rule under which settlement automatically defeats return.
Timing matters.
Where Hague proceedings are commenced within one year of the wrongful removal or retention, the Convention generally directs the court to order return.
The “now settled” inquiry becomes relevant when proceedings begin after the expiration of the one-year period.
And even then, settlement does not necessarily produce an automatic refusal of return.
The distinction is critical.
Why Timing Matters So Much
Delay is uniquely dangerous in international child-abduction cases.
A child who remains in a new country begins developing new routines.
The child may enter school, form friendships, participate in activities, and become integrated into a new community.
If settlement alone could defeat return regardless of when proceedings were initiated, a parent who wrongfully removed a child could potentially benefit from prolonging the process.
That would undermine one of the core purposes of the Hague Convention: discouraging unilateral international relocation and preventing a parent from creating a new custody forum through wrongful removal.
For that reason, counsel must document the dates carefully:
- date of removal;
- date of alleged wrongful retention;
- date the left-behind parent learned of the retention;
- date Hague proceedings were initiated; and
- duration of any subsequent delay.
Those dates can materially affect the applicable legal analysis.
A Hague Case Is Not a Custody Trial
The Pakistan decision also highlights a broader point that frequently causes confusion.
A Hague Convention proceeding does not determine which parent should ultimately receive custody.
A custody court generally considers the child’s best interests and determines a long-term parenting arrangement.
A Hague court asks a narrower set of questions.
Those questions usually concern:
- habitual residence;
- rights of custody;
- exercise of those rights;
- wrongful removal or retention; and
- whether a defined Convention exception applies.
The Hague court is ordinarily deciding where the custody dispute should be determined, not who should win custody.
That distinction must be maintained if the Convention is to function as intended.
What Parents in U.S.–Pakistan Cases Should Consider
Where a child has been taken between the United States and Pakistan, counsel should examine the entire international framework rather than treating the dispute as an ordinary domestic custody case.
Relevant issues may include:
- where the child was habitually resident;
- whether the Hague Convention applies between the countries involved;
- the existence of foreign custody orders;
- whether those orders can be recognized or enforced;
- the date of removal or retention;
- whether Convention proceedings were commenced within one year;
- the existence of parallel proceedings;
- possible defenses involving consent, acquiescence, grave risk, settlement, or child objection;
- whether the foreign court’s jurisdiction will be recognized; and
- how delay in either jurisdiction may affect the child’s circumstances.
A favorable order in one country is not necessarily self-enforcing in another.
International enforcement must be planned.
The Bottom Line
The Federal Constitutional Court’s 2026 decision provides important guidance concerning finality, foreign custody orders, and international jurisdiction.
It also demonstrates why Hague Convention proceedings must remain analytically distinct from ordinary custody litigation.
The purpose of a Hague case is not to decide whether a child would have a better life with one parent or in one country.
Its principal function is to determine whether a wrongful international removal or retention occurred and whether the Convention requires the child’s return, subject to its defined exceptions.
For families involved in U.S.–Pakistan custody litigation, the interaction between domestic family law, foreign orders, habitual residence, Hague Convention principles, and enforcement strategy may ultimately determine the outcome.
At Multi-Jurisdictional Divorce, we advise and represent parents in international custody and child-abduction matters involving U.S. courts and foreign jurisdictions. Our work focuses not simply on obtaining an order, but on developing a coordinated strategy capable of functioning across borders.