FD25P00204 - [2025] EWHC 2672 (Fam)

I am concerned with a boy, A, born on 8 June 2023 and now just over 2 years old. I shall refer to his mother as “M” and his father as “F”.

This is F’s application dated 16 April 2025 under the 1980 Hague Convention for A to be returned to Romania after what he describes as a wrongful removal by M to this country on 20 August 2024.

M’s defences are:

The final hearing was listed before MacDonald J on 9 September 2025. Prior to that hearing, the evidence of both M and F on consent/acquiescence revolved around a discussion between them on 12 August 2024, shortly before she and A left Romania.

At the hearing on 9 September 2025, M raised, for the first time, an assertion that her father and F had reached an agreement in September 2024, mediated by community elders, that in return for payment of €13,000 to him, F would not seek the return of A to Romania. That, she says, constituted acquiescence. She had not raised it before. Nor had F made any mention of discussions with the elders, which he accepts took place and as a result of which he too thought some level of understanding had been reached, albeit different from M’s account.

MacDonald J adjourned the final hearing. He gave directions for further statements from M, her father and F on this additional issue.

I heard from M, her father, and F on the issue of consent/acquiescence. I did not think M and F were particularly satisfactory witnesses. Neither of them, for example, could explain coherently why they had not, prior to the hearing before MacDonald J, spoken of the discussion with the elders. M’s father seemed to me to be a little confused at times.

Doing the best I can on the written evidence and limited oral evidence, the relevant chronology is as follows.

M and F are Romanian nationals aged respectively 23 and 28. Both were born in Romania. They are of Roma background and heritage.

M moved to England from Romania with her parents when she was 14 years old. In 2021, she met F on holiday in Romania. She moved to Romania in August 2022 to live with F and his parents. She says that before long the Father and his family were physical and verbally abusive, demeaning and controlling towards her.

In March 2023, M left F, moving to her grandmother’s home in Romania for a week, and then to her parents in England when she was six months pregnant. A was born in England. Shortly after his birth, M and F reconciled and in July 2023, M returned with A to Romania, moving back to F’s parents’ home. According to M, F was angry that his name was not on A’s birth certificate, threatened to kill her and her family if she did not change it, beat her and locked her in a cellar. M alleges she was also threatened with death by the paternal grandfather and slapped around her face by the paternal grandmother. Thereafter M says that she was effectively imprisoned in the house and prevented from caring for A fully. The physical abuse continued. She was too terrified to leave or report the abuse because she feared A would be removed from her.

In June 2024, M’s parents travelled to Romania for a holiday. At about the same time F had gone to England to do some work as a painter/decorator. On 12 August 2024, M told her parents about the situation she was experiencing. F was still in England and M believed that he was in a relationship with another woman. M and A left the paternal grandparents’ home on 12 August 2024; M took some belongings and A’s passports. They stayed with her grandmother for a week.

It was M’s evidence, which I accept, that she had a conversation with F on 12 August 2024 after she had left the paternal grandparents’ home. M’s father made the call initially from M’s grandmother’s home, then handed over to M. According to her statement, M told F that “if he refused to return to Romania, I would take A to the UK, I told him that I did not want to continue with the relationship if he did not care about me. F told me that he would return to Romania when he wanted…F did not care…..I interpreted this as him giving consent for A to relocate to England”. In oral evidence, M said that if F had agreed to leave his girlfriend and fly back to Romania, she would not have left him, or left Romania with A; she wanted the family to be together. M accepts that she did not directly ask F for his agreement to her leaving Romania with the children, nor did he expressly give his agreement.

On 20 August 2024, M, her parents and A travelled to England. I am confident that F did not know of the departure in specific terms, but had some inkling from the conversation on 12 August 2024 that M might leave Romania with A, although he did not know for sure that it would happen or when.

On the day of her arrival in England (according to M), or possibly the next day (according to F), F phoned her father and, said “he wanted his son to be back in Romania” (I take this quote directly from M’s written evidence). On 21 August 2024 F, who had immediately returned to Romania on hearing of M and A’s departure, had a text exchange with M’s brother demanding A’s return to Romania.

Subsequently, at some point in August/September, according to M’s father, F phoned him asking for money. He said he would let A stay in England if her family paid him a sum, which is customary in Roma community arrangements for children. He said that if he did not receive money, he would kill M’s father and other family members. If money was paid, he said he would stop all proceedings in Romania. F denied this conversation took place but I consider it likely that something along these lines occurred, and at least some mention of money was made, although there was no agreement. Thereafter, it is M's case that F made repeated threats to kill on numerous occasions in this period, both made against M’s family in England and her family in Romania.

In September 2024, M’s father suggested to F that they should try and broker an agreement in Romania through Roma community elders. He approached M Mototolea and F approached Mr Sadoveanu.

On 18 September 2024, M’s father travelled to Romania with M’s brother. They stayed at M’s grandmother’s house. M’s father met both mediators on 21 or 22 September. The mediators went back and forth between M’s father and F on what seems to have been no more than one or two occasions. M’s father and F did not meet or have any indirect contact by phone or otherwise. Their perception of what took place is based entirely on what they each said to the elders, and what the elders said to each of them.

I was told by the witnesses that nothing was recorded in writing. M’s father and F were not permitted by the elders to take notes. The elders had a small book in which they wrote a few notes, but nobody saw what they wrote down. For some inexplicable reason, neither party has produced any evidence from either of the elders about the negotiations and/or any agreement. Nor did it appear that either has attempted to do so. Establishing whether an agreement took place and, if so, in what terms is particularly difficult.

I was not greatly assisted by M’s evidence about these events as she was not present, and relied on what she had been told by her father, although she did have one brief phone call with the elders. However, M did tell me, which I accept, that her primary aim in the discussions was to try and effect a reconciliation with F if possible and if that was not possible, then to agree finances between them so as to stop what she describes as F’s aggressive and threatening behaviour; in short, to buy peace.

M’s father confirmed that he wanted to bring the threats to an end, and if possible to effect a reconciliation. He did not say to me that the purpose of the discussions was to ensure that A would remain in England. He said that his essential terms, relayed to the elders, were (i) to have peace between the families, and (ii) for a power of attorney to be signed so that A could travel back and forth between England and Romania without risk that he would be retained in Romania; this he told me directly in response to questions from me, and again in re-examination. Implicit within that, it seemed to me, was an expectation that A would continue to live with M in England. However, that was not, on his evidence, an explicit requirement.

M’s father said that a payment of €13,000 was suggested by the elders and agreed by him to achieve his priorities. True, he said that the elders told him that A would be able to stay with M, but (i) that is what he was told by the elders, not by F, and (ii) it was not specifically a term that A would continue living in England, and (iii) it was not, on his own evidence, what was agreed; he said to me that the agreement was payment of €13,000, securing a power of attorney and enabling harmony to be restored.

F says that the elders informed him of two options: (i) M’s family to pay him €13,000 and A to live in England or (ii) him to pay M’s family €100,000 for A to be returned to Romania. He rejected both. He denies having received any money. He says, and I accept, that no mention was made to him of a power of attorney. Instead, he thought they reached an understanding as to some form of shared care, taking place between Romania and the UK. He said “The broad agreement that we reached was that M would come back to Romania with A to discuss and agree the details of how this would work, and to formalise the agreement via lawyers”. Subsequently there was some talk of three months with M and one month with F.

M’s father says €13,000 was paid. The evidence on this is thin. The money, he told me, was raised from family members, and was all in cash. M’s father says he handed it to the elders for onward transmission. They were supposed to hand it to F. They told M’s father that they had done so. There is no direct evidence of the payment from M’s father to the elders and then from the elders to F. In court proceedings in Romania, M’s mother told the Romanian court at a hearing on 10 July 2025 that €13,000 was paid “two or three weeks later” and because the family was afraid of F who was threatening them. M’s father sent a text to F on 12 November 2024 saying, “I gave you 13,000 Euros out of fear” (I reject F’s submission that this was sent for forensic purposes to assist in legal proceedings). These pieces of evidence provide some corroboration for M’s father’s evidence that €13,000 was raised and given to the elders, but F has always denied he received anything. They are not evidence that F received anything.

Pulling these events together, I am of the view that no overall agreement was reached, and in particular there was no agreement for A to live in England. The elders seem to me to have laid the groundwork for some form of relative peace, to create some space within which the parties could decide on child arrangements. I consider it likely that both parties envisaged that some form of shared care arrangement, with A living with M and spending time with F, was achievable. The main aim of M’s family was to try and stop F’s aggression and to obtain a power of attorney so that A could not be retained by F in Romania. They thought they had achieved that. The main aim of F was to try and secure time with A. He thought he had achieved that. The elders seem to have said different things to each party. Each party left with a different understanding.

As for whether 13,000 euros was paid, in my judgment that sum was indeed raised by M’s family and given to the elders to hand over in cash to F (precisely when is unclear). It seems plausible to me that the elders, who conducted the discussions on their own terms, without the parties meeting and with no record of what happened, did not hand the money to F. They may have been able to avoid giving him the money because on F’s case he rejected the monetary offer and therefore did not expect to receive a payment, whereas M's father was told by the elders that F had accepted it and therefore the money needed to be paid. Neither party would have been any the wiser. If F did receive the money, then he deceived M’s family. On either version, however, the principal purposes for the payment from the point of view of M’s family were (i) to persuade F to stop his threatening behaviour and (ii) to obtain a power of attorney, and from F’s point of view it was to try and secure some contact with A. It was not to secure A remaining in England.

According to M’s father, F phoned him a few days later. M’s father said that A could spend some time with F either in Romania or England, but confirmation was needed that A would be returned after contact. M in her evidence also said that in principle it was agreed that A could travel to see F for a holiday in Romania. The date of 22 October 2024 for A to travel was alighted upon.

What then seems to have happened is that M’s father asked for the power of attorney which he believed had been agreed with the elders. F, to whom this had not been mentioned by the elders, reacted angrily, saying that A must come to Romania first and then everything could be sorted out, including a power of attorney. M’s father refused to go along with that suggestion, believing that A could be retained by F without a power of attorney in advance. A heated exchange of messages in October evidences the nature of this disagreement. F’s position is neatly summarised in one of the messages: “Bring the boy and afterwards we go and sort out the documents at the notary”. In my judgment, this was a direct result of them each having different impressions of what had been discussed/agreed with the elders.

Coinciding with the row over the power of attorney, F resumed his threats to M’s family which he denies but which I accept as having taken place. Messages in the bundle (which he denied were from him) showed a number of such threats in October 2024.

On one occasion, according to M’s father, F said to M’s father that he had tricked them, taken the money and would take the child as well, although I have reservations as to precisely what was said in this conversation during very heated exchanges. Any understanding or goodwill from the discussions via the elders evaporated.

In December 2024, F travelled to England and had contact with A. On M’s case, he said he wanted to take A back to Romania. He threatened and physically attacked the maternal grandfather, and made further threats to kill M’s family, and to take A away. The police were called by a neighbour. F says that in fact he was assaulted by M’s mother and two brothers. Police disclosure provides corroboration that, at the very least, they received a callout; the records show that no formal complaint was made.

M and A currently live with M’s parents. She says A is settled and thriving.