C (A Child) (Art. 13(b) – return to Romania), Re

Article 13(b) requires a two-stage assessment. The court must first consider whether the allegations, taken at their highest but subject to evaluative assessment, establish a grave risk to the child. If they do, the court must then assess whether adequate and effective protective measures in the requesting state sufficiently address that risk.

The assessment must focus on the child and examine the practical situation on return. Protective measures should be considered holistically. They may include undertakings, safeguards available in the requesting state, confidential return arrangements, financial support and access to urgent protective remedies. Judicial comity requires particular caution before treating decisions of the requesting state’s courts as proven inadequacies. Serious domestic abuse does not automatically preclude contact between the abusive parent and child.

The father sought the summary return of C, a Romanian child removed to England by her mother, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The mother opposed return under Article 13(b), alleging extensive physical, sexual and coercive abuse by the father. Some allegations had been established by Romanian courts, which had made a protection order and child-arrangements orders.

The father accepted that the allegations, taken at their highest, could establish grave risk, but relied on Romanian protective measures, undertakings and proposed soft-landing arrangements. The central issue was whether effective protection would be available in Romania so that C would not face an intolerable situation on return.

1. Article 13(b) assessment. The court approached the mother’s allegations at their highest, while undertaking the evaluative assessment required by the summary nature of the Hague process. The allegations were detailed, plausible and materially supported by contemporaneous material and findings of fact made by Romanian courts. If left unaddressed, the father’s alleged conduct created a real and substantial risk of repeated abuse of the mother, with a very high risk of psychological harm to C. The Article 13(b) threshold would therefore have been established but for adequate and effective protective measures.
2. Romanian protection. The court accepted the general findings concerning Romanian law and practice in Re B [2025] EWCA Civ 1603. Romanian courts and agencies had previously provided protection, including a protection order, children’s-services intervention and urgent relief. The mother’s failure to renew the protection order did not demonstrate systemic inadequacy.
3. Comity and foreign judicial decisions. Judicial comity and mutual recognition required particular caution before concluding that Romanian courts had shown proven inadequacies. Their decisions had considered the child’s best interests, the mother’s primary care, the absence of proved violence against C, and the applicable domestic and international framework. Serious abuse did not automatically bar direct contact. The court therefore rejected the submission that the Romanian child-arrangements decisions rebutted the presumption of equivalent protective capacity.
4. Undertakings and practical safeguards. The father’s undertakings, financial support and soft-landing arrangements were capable in principle of addressing the risk. Return was conditional on confirmation that criminal proceedings would not be brought against the mother, advance payment of specified sums, confidential return arrangements, and registration or equivalent recognition in Romania of the undertaking not to molest or harass her. The mother was not required to give reciprocal undertakings or to waive access to without-notice protective applications.
5. Disposition. Considering the measures holistically, the court concluded that C’s return would not expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation. The father’s application for C’s return to Romania was granted. The parties were invited to draft the order.