In the matter of B (A Child)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0009

Parties

Appellant(s)

The Mother

Respondent(s)

The Father

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in denying that the father had acquiesced to the removal of the child from Romania to England? Did the Court of Appeal err in denying that the Romanian court had acquiesced to the removal of the child? Did the Court of Appeal err in denying that there was a grave risk to the child if the mother and child were made to return to Romania?

Facts

This appeal concerns an application by a father, resident in Romania, for the summary return by the mother, who is resident in England, of their child under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The mother originally moved to England from Romania when she was 14. In 2022, while on holiday, she met the father in Romania and they began a relationship. She fell pregnant and moved to Romania. The relationship then deteriorated, with the mother accusing the father of being controlling, abusive and unfaithful. The mother returned to England in 2023 and moved in with her parents. She gave birth to the child in June 2023. The father contacted the mother and asked her to return to Romania, promising that he had changed. The mother moved back to Romania to live with him. According to the mother, the father remained abusive, and made threats to kill the mother and her family if she did not add his name to the child’s Romanian birth certificate. The father thereupon moved to England to work. The mother, meanwhile, went to live at her grandmother’s house in Romania. The mother called the father and told him that unless he returned to Romania and ended a relationship that she alleged the father was having with another woman, she would move back to England with the child. The mother then moved back to England in August 2024, where she has resided with the child since. The father immediately returned to Romania upon learning of this, and made numerous threats, including to kill the mother’s family. There followed communications between the child’s maternal grandfather and the father, who had no direct contact but separately undertook meetings with certain “elders” in the Roma community who acted as mediators. A sum of €13,000 was paid by the maternal grandfather to the elders to be paid on to the father, but no overall agreement was reached. The father returned to Romania and initiated an application under the 1980 Convention for the child to be returned to Romania, alleging that the mother wrongfully removed the child to England in August 2024. Peel J in the High Court ordered that the child be returned to Romania, on the grounds that the father had not consented or acquiesced to the removal to England, and nor had the Romanian court. He also held that there was no grave risk to the child. He subjected the return order to a number of conditions and protective measures. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the return order. The mother now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

15 January 2026

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Leggatt

Lord Stephens

Permission to Appeal decision date

2 February 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise an arguable point of law.

Back to top