Buscador de jurisprudencia

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. 

Return ordered.

Note that the mother later appealed this decision, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss the Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence and Article 13(1)(b) exceptions to return. The appeal was dismissed and the decision upheld. See case: Re B (1980 Hague Convention: Article 13(a)/(b)), [2025] EWCA Civ 1603, INCADAT ID1671.

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 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 mother could not show that the father had set aside his strong objections and there was no documentation or evidence to confirm the agreement. Therefore the exception to return based on Article 13(1)(a) was not made out. 

The mother further submitted that the Romanian court had acquiesced in the retention of the child in England. The Judge held that it would be highly unusual for a court in England to determine that, if a child is allegedly abducted from this jurisdiction to a 1980 Hague Convention country, the court itself should consent to/acquiesce in the wrongful removal or retention. In this case, the father was exercising his rights of custody and the mother failed to show how the Romanian court had acquiesced in removal if the father had not. Further, the Judge held that this should be for the court of habitual residence to decide, rather than the English court. The Judge discouraged this argument from being advanced, save in the most exceptional cases.

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

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