Case Law Search

The parents were both Romanian nationals, born in Romania and of Roma background and heritage. The mother moved to England from Romania with her parents when she was 14 years old. In 2021, she met the father while on holiday in Romania. She moved back to Romania in August 2022 to live with the father. She says that the father and his family were physically and verbally abusive and controlling of her. In March 2023, the relationship ended and the mother returned to England. By that time she was six months pregnant. 

The child was born in England in June 2023 and the father’s name was not recorded on the birth certificate. Within weeks of the birth, the mother and father reconciled. In July 2023 the mother travelled with the child to live with the father and his family to Romania.

The mother argued that the father and his family were again controlling and would not let her bring the child with her when she visited the UK to see her family. She also said the father was non-committal after he travelled to England for work and never confirmed if he would return to Romania. 

In August 2024 the mother took the child to England. When the father found out about this he moved back to Romania from England and initiated proceedings to seek the child’s return.

In September 2024, the parties engaged in an attempted negotiation in Romania with the assistance of Roma community elders. The mother played no direct part in the negotiation, save for one phone call and none of the negotiations were recorded in writing. There was some evidence that the maternal grandfather paid the Roma elders €13,000 for onward transmission to the father and had done so “out of fear” and to reach an agreement for the child to remain in England. After negotiation the father send abusive messages and threats to the mother and her family. 

In April 2025 the father issued an application under the 1980 Hague Convention. At first instance the judge ordered the child be returned to Romania.

The mother appealed, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss the Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence and Article 13(1)(b) exceptions to return. 

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother argued that the father had acquiesced to the removal when the maternal grandfather paid money to the Roma elders. The father disputed this and the first instance Judge found that there was no evidence that the money paid to the Roma elders was given to the father nor that there was an agreement for the child to remain in England. The Judge found that the Roma elders had different discussions with each of the parties and that the father and maternal grandfather each left with a different understanding. 

The Court of Appeal agreed with this analysis and held that the mother failed to discharge the burden on her of proving acquiescence as she could not show that the father consented to the continued presence of the child in England or that his words or actions clearly and unequivocally showed and led to believe that he was not going to assert his right to the summary return of the child. In this case all of the father’s actions in the years and months before, and the months after, the negotiations revealed that he had consistently opposed the child’s removal to England.

The Court also agreed with the first-instance determination that the Romanian court had not acquiesced to the removal and that it would be highly unusual for a court in a requesting state to consent to or acquiesce in the wrongful removal or retention. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The first instance Judge took the mother’s accusations at their highest and considered if protective measures could be put in place to mitigate the risk to the child. A return order was made subject to a number of such conditions.

The Court of Appeal held that this was the appropriate approach. The Judge had the benefit of clear and practical advice on the implementation of protective measures in Romania from a single joint expert and sensibly deferred the child’s return until the necessary steps had been taken to establish the legal protective framework.