EF v EF

EF v EF

The mother failed to prove that the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention of A in England. The evidence did not establish a clear agreement for A to remain in England, nor did the payment of €13,000 constitute acquiescence. Although the mother's allegations of abuse were taken at their highest, the risk to A upon return to Romania could be sufficiently mitigated by enforceable protective measures. Therefore, the Article 13(b) defence was not made out, and a return order was appropriate subject to conditions.

Parties
Applicant Father: EF; Respondent Mother: EF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction and Custody (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Return order granted subject to protective measures and conditions.
Legal Topics
International Child Abduction, Hague Convention 1980, Child Custody, Protective Measures, Consent and Acquiescence, Article 13(b) Defence
Family Law International Law International Child Abduction Hague Convention 1980 Child Custody Protective Measures Consent and Acquiescence Article 13(b) Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EF

Applicant Father

EF

Respondent Mother

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction and Custody (hague Convention) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of child A from Romania to England was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention of A in England
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation for the child if returned (Article 13(b))

Ratio Decidendi

The mother failed to prove that the father consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention of A in England. The evidence did not establish a clear agreement for A to remain in England, nor did the payment of €13,000 constitute acquiescence. Although the mother's allegations of abuse were taken at their highest, the risk to A upon return to Romania could be sufficiently mitigated by enforceable protective measures. Therefore, the Article 13(b) defence was not made out, and a return order was appropriate subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Return order granted subject to protective measures and conditions.

Orders

  • Child A to be returned to Romania within 14 days, accompanied by the mother, subject to registration of the order in Romania.
  • Father to pay for return flights for mother and child.