Family Court refuses local authority application to transfer care proceedings relating to 21-month-old child to Romania

In A Local Authority v F (A Child: Article 8 Transfer of Proceedings to Romania) [2026] EWFC 129 (B) (27 May 2026), Catherine Cowton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, held that the Romanian authorities were not better placed to assess the child’s best interests, and called for the case to progress to a final hearing “as soon as possible”.

The case concerned F, aged 21 months, who was born in England. F’s mother is of Bulgarian nationality, and her father is Romanian.

Following concerns about the care F was receiving from her parents, care proceedings were initiated. Since February 2025, she has been cared for by foster carers in England.

Outlining the local authority’s application to transfer the public law care proceedings to Romania, Catherine Cowton KC said: “The local authority asks me to transfer these proceedings to Romania. Their final care plan is for F to be placed for adoption in Romania, and they do not want to delay starting that process.

“If I agree to transfer the proceedings to Romania, I am asked to stay these English care proceedings, make a formal request to the Romanian authorities to assume jurisdiction, approve the practical arrangements for F to be taken to Romania by the social worker and her foster carer, and - once she has arrived and been handed over to the Romanian authorities - to dismiss these English proceedings, on the basis that all issues would thereafter be dealt with in Romania.”

The mother objected to the transfer application.

The judge said: “[The mother] does not agree to F being placed for adoption, and wishes for F to return to her care (or shared care with the father). However, if the court were to decide that F should be placed for adoption, the mother would wish her to be adopted by an English family, not a Romanian family.”

The Children’s Guardian also objected to the application, for reasons including that all the evidence is in England, the case is essentially ready for final hearing, both parents are in England, and F has never lived anywhere else.

Looking at F’s immigration status, the judge observed that F would be entitled to both Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship through her parents, although no steps had yet been taken to obtain any nationality or travel documents for her from either country.

Considering the principles governing jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention and the circumstances in which a transfer may be justified, Catherine Cowton KC said: “Article 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention states:

(1)  By way of exception, the authority of a Contracting State having jurisdiction under Article 5 or 6, if it considers that the authority of another Contracting State would be better placed in the particular case to assess the best interests of the child, may either:

-  request that other authority, directly or with the assistance of the Central Authority of its State, to assume jurisdiction to take such measures of protection as it considers to be necessary, or  
- suspend consideration of the case and invite the parties to introduce such a request before the authority of that other State.

(2)  The Contracting States whose authorities may be addressed as provided in the preceding paragraph are:

a)  a State of which the child is a national,  
b)  a State in which property of the child is located,  
c)  a State whose authorities are seised of an application for divorce or legal separation of the child's parents, or for annulment of their marriage,  
d)  a State with which the child has a substantial connection.

(3)  The authorities concerned may proceed to an exchange of views.

(4)  The authority addressed as provided in paragraph 1 may assume jurisdiction, in place of the authority having jurisdiction under Article 5 or 6, if it considers that this is in the child's best interests. (Judge’s emphasis).

“Through her father, F is a Romanian national. The English court may therefore request the Romanian authorities to assume jurisdiction to take such measures of protection as it considers necessary, but only if the English court consider that the Romanian court is "better placed in the particular case to assess the best interests of the child" than the English court.”

The local authority submitted that Romania would be "better placed to assess the best interests" of F, and "importantly, to identify and provide the most appropriate long-term care for her".

Given her age and developmental stage, the local authority considered it would be in F's best interest for her care to be transitioned to the Romanian authorities "sooner rather than later".

Analysing and concluding the case, Catherine Cowton KC said: “After carefully considering all the submissions, and evidence in this case, I cannot see how I could come to the conclusion that the Romanian courts are better placed to assess the best interests of F at this stage:

“Other than the assessments of extended paternal family members in Romania, which were negative and are not challenged, the evidence and witnesses in this case are all in England;

• Both parents are in England;
• The social workers, who have worked very hard on this case, are in England;
• The ISW who assessed the parents is in England;
• The residential placement where the mother stayed with F before she was placed in foster care, is in England;
• The mother's cognitive assessment was done in England;
• The contact centre which provides contact notes for the mother's regular contact with F is in England;
• All of the events leading to F being placed in Police Protection, and later in foster care, took place in England;
• The extensive documentation relating to F's life and the concerns about her care (the bundle in this case is 875 pages) is in English;
• The Guardian has been involved with F since the beginning of these proceedings, 15 months ago;
• These court proceedings are well advanced; there was supposed to have been an IRH in January 26 (the IRH having adjourned twice,);
• All of the evidence (save for that of the father) has been filed;
• Save for any placement application which the local authority indicated it may make following this hearing, to give the court the alternative of an adoption placement in England, and consequential/updating evidence, the case is ready for a final hearing;
• I understand that the Romanian courts would not be bound by the evidence and assessments so far provided in these English proceedings; they may well wish to carry out their own assessments, which would entail further delay for F;
• F has a Guardian in these proceedings, and her own representation, so that her best interests can be carefully considered;
• Both parents have legal aid and legal representation here, and so can challenge the evidence insofar as they wish to do so (and the mother certainly wishes to do so);
• The English court will ensure that both parties have access to interpreters in these proceedings, so that they can engage fully with these court proceedings.”

The judge continued: “There are also in my view important arguments about the Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR rights of the various parties, were these proceedings to be transferred to Romania and F taken to that country by the local authority, before these care proceedings have concluded:

• F has only (to date) lived in England; she has never visited Romania;
• Both of her parents live in England at the moment;
• She has been cared for by foster carers in England for 14 months;
• The language which has surrounded her is English; moving to a Romanian foster care placement suddenly, would be a significant change for her;
• She has regular contact with her mother, seeing her three times a week; they are described as having a loving relationship. I cannot see how the mother can practically continue to have contact with F if these proceedings and F were to be moved immediately to Romania, when the mother lives in England.
• The mother has no accommodation and no family in Romania;
• I have no evidence about whether the mother would be able to access legal advice and representation in Romania, or engage effectively with the courts of that country, where she does not live;
• The father did not engage in this hearing or give his instructions to his lawyers; he does have family in Romania, and as a Romanian citizen he is likely to be in a better position to access legal advice and representation there, and to engage effectively with the Romanian authorities, but the mother's position as a Bulgarian national is likely to be more problematic.”

The judge found the application was “premature”, in circumstances where the mother strongly objects to her child being adopted, and also to adoption in Romania, and is entitled to challenge the local authority's application in the English court within these court proceedings.

Concluding the case, she said: “For all the above reasons, I cannot agree that the Romanian court is better placed to assess F's best interests, and so the Article 8 transfer application must fail.” (judge’s emphasis).

She added: “I am concerned that these court proceedings relating to this very young child have effectively been 'paused' for several months while the local authority made this application and the court has adjudicated on it. There was supposed to be an IRH [in] January 2026, but that hearing was adjourned while this jurisdictional issue was resolved. The case needs now to progress to a final hearing as soon as possible.”

Lottie Winson