Within the context of the legislative transformations taking place across the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, custody laws emerge as one of the legal issues that most deeply affect the lives of divorced women and their children, while remaining among the least discussed and least reviewed in public policy debates. Although these laws adopt a legislative discourse that recognizes the principle of “the best interests of the child,” the institutional structure governing their implementation produces a different reality. In many cases, custody shifts from being a guaranteed maternal right into a tool of legal pressure and coercion that restricts divorced women and discourages them from claiming their legitimate rights. This article seeks to analyze this structural gap between legal text and judicial practice in three Gulf legislative systems, in light of the international framework for children’s rights.
First: The International Legal Framework and the Limits of Its Regional Reflection
The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child represents a turning point in the international child rights system. Article 3 states that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” [1] Gulf states have ratified this convention. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has been committed to it since 1996, recognizing that the best interests of the child must be protected and considered in all decisions concerning children. [2] However, formal ratification of the convention does not necessarily mean that its principles are fully absorbed into everyday judicial practice, especially when custody decisions intersect with the codified logic of male guardianship embedded within national legislation.
Second: The Structural Contradiction Between Maternal Custody and Paternal Guardianship
A comparison between three Gulf legislative systems reveals a recurring structural pattern: mothers are granted physical custody while fathers simultaneously retain comprehensive guardianship powers. In Saudi Arabia, according to Article 135 of the Personal Status Law, custody ends when the child reaches the age of fifteen, at which point the child is granted the right to choose which parent to live with. [3]
Is changing the legal text enough to change the patriarchal logic that governs its implementation?
In the United Arab Emirates, Article 112 of the Personal Status Law states that “custody means preserving, raising, caring for, and looking after the child’s interests in a manner that does not conflict with the guardian’s right of guardianship.” [4] This legislative wording carries profound implications, as it turns maternal custody into a conditional practice constrained by paternal guardianship rather than a complete form of legal independence. In Qatar, Family Law No. 22 of 2006 obliges the custodian to “enable the guardian or legal trustee to fulfill the duties required by guardianship over the child, including supervising the child’s proper upbringing, providing the best medical treatment, education, and preparation for the future.” In practice, this significantly restricts the mother’s authority over major decisions such as education, healthcare, and travel. [5]
Third: Custody as a Tool of Coercion and the Blackmail of Silence
The sharpest gap between legal text and implementation appears in what can be described as “structural legal coercion,” where the threat of losing custody acts as a powerful deterrent pushing many divorced women to give up legitimate legal rights such as alimony and protection from abuse. Under the Saudi system, a mother loses custody if she marries a man unrelated to the child, while the father faces no equivalent condition upon remarriage. This establishes a deeply unequal double standard. Furthermore, the right to custody may also be lost if the entitled guardian remains silent and does not claim custody for more than one year without excuse or justification. [6] Although this provision appears neutral on the surface, it produces discriminatory consequences in situations where silence is not a genuine choice, but rather a response to unspoken pressure and intimidation. In this context, seeking alimony or pursuing legal protection becomes a calculated risk, because any legal confrontation with the more powerful party may activate mechanisms that threaten the mother’s custody rights.
Fourth: The Limits of Legislative Reform
Recent legislative developments indicate relatively reform-oriented directions. Saudi Arabia’s new Personal Status Law, for instance, stipulates that guardianship transfers directly to the mother upon the father’s death instead of passing to the grandfather, as was previously the norm. The law also establishes more detailed visitation mechanisms that take the child’s interests into account. [7] Yet these reforms collide with a structural ceiling. As long as paternal guardianship remains the governing framework for major decisions, modifying the age of custody or rearranging custody priorities remains only a marginal improvement rather than a fundamental restructuring. Local customs and traditions continue to exert deep influence over custody decisions, meaning that judges often operate within a cultural system that privileges paternal authority before they even open the law book. This reality raises a fundamental policy question: is amending the legal text alone enough to transform the patriarchal logic that drives its implementation?
This comparative analytical reading demonstrates that custody laws in Gulf countries carry an inherent contradiction. On one hand, they recognize the mother’s right to custody, while on the other hand they strip this right of its practical substance through paternal guardianship mechanisms and arbitrary conditions for revoking custody. No genuine legislative reform can be complete unless it is based on three integrated pillars: activating the principle of “the best interests of the child” as a practical judicial standard rather than a legislative slogan, reviewing custody revocation conditions that undermine the dignity of mothers, and establishing genuine independence for women in decisions related to education and healthcare guardianship. Divorce should not become a gateway to punishment, nor should custody become a tool of blackmail.
This report is supported by:
