B (1980 Hague Convention: Article 13(a)/(b)), Re

Under Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention, acquiescence ordinarily depends on the wronged parent’s actual state of mind. Exceptional objective acquiescence requires clear and unequivocal conduct which leads the other parent to believe that summary return will not be sought. Unresolved negotiations, even if directed to peaceful arrangements, do not meet that standard without a concluded agreement.

Under Article 13(b), the court must assess the alleged grave risk and then the protection available on return. Enforceable, effective protective measures may sufficiently reduce the risk to the child and defeat the exception.

The father sought the summary return to Romania of B, aged two, after the mother took him from Romania to England in August 2024. The mother relied on Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention, alleging the father’s consent or acquiescence and acquiescence by the Romanian court. She also relied on Article 13(b), alleging domestic abuse and a grave risk of harm on return.

Peel J, sitting in the Family Division, ordered B’s return subject to extensive protective measures being enforceable in Romania. The mother appealed on the grounds that the judge had erred on acquiescence and grave risk. The central issues were whether the September 2024 community negotiations established acquiescence, whether the Romanian court had acquiesced, and whether enforceable safeguards answered the Article 13(b) risk.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The return order remained in force, subject to a revised return date and to the conditions and protective measures imposed by Peel J being enforceable in Romania.

2. The mother had not proved acquiescence by the father under Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention. The applicable principles in Re H & Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1997] UKHL 12 required proof either of the father’s actual acceptance of B’s continued presence in England or of clear and unequivocal conduct inconsistent with seeking summary return. The judge’s mistaken finding that reconciliation was a primary aim of the negotiations did not undermine his central findings. The evidence showed no concluded agreement, and no agreement that B should live in England.

3. The court doubted, without needing finally to decide, whether a court could itself acquiesce for Article 13(a) purposes. In any event, the Romanian court had not done so. Its exercise of welfare jurisdiction and its request for a social enquiry report in England were not inconsistent with summary return. Its determination that B had been habitually resident in Romania and that it had jurisdiction was positively inconsistent with acquiescence.

4. The judge correctly applied the Article 13(b) inquiry in Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2012] 1 AC 144. Taking the allegations of domestic abuse at their highest, he was entitled to find that the risk to B could be sufficiently ameliorated by formal protective measures. The court rejected the contention that the judge had minimised the allegations. His observation that B was unlikely to be the direct target of harm did not overlook the possible effect on him of abuse of the mother.

5. The measures were practically supported by expert evidence on their recognition and enforcement in Romania. They included financial support, non-harassment and non-contact restrictions, accommodation-related protections, passport arrangements and confirmation that the father’s criminal complaint would proceed no further. The judge was entitled to require that the measures be legally enforceable before return. Further case management was remitted to Peel J.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the mother’s appeal and upheld the conditional return order: [2025] EWCA Civ 1603.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division (Peel J) — on 2 October 2025 ordered B’s summary return to Romania under the 1980 Hague Convention, subject to enforceable protective measures.