Evidence from abroad in divorce & child custody cases (Romania): witnesses, documents, video hearings, letters rogatory

International families do not litigate in a vacuum. A Romanian divorce or parenting case can hinge on facts that happened in another country: where a child actually lives day‑to‑day, who takes the child to school, what the living conditions look like, what the real income is, or whether a parent can realistically maintain contact from abroad. The challenge is not only to find that evidence, but to bring it into the case in a way the court can rely on.

This article is a practical guide focused on lawful routes. For evidence located in another EU Member State, the key instrument is Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on taking of evidence (recast), including the 90‑day execution benchmark for requested courts (Art. 12) and the rules on videoconferencing for direct taking of evidence (Arts. 19–20) in the consolidated text: EUR‑Lex consolidated version (02/12/2020). For Romanian procedure on evidence generally (including commission rogatory, documents, electronic and material evidence, and interrogatories), the main reference is the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure: Codul de procedură civilă (legislatie.just.ro).

It is written with diaspora clients in mind: you may live abroad, the other parent may live abroad, or the key proof may be held by an employer, school, landlord, or bank outside Romania. The goal is to reduce time lost on unusable evidence, delays, or avoidable objections.

1) What “evidence from abroad” looks like in real divorce & custody disputes

In family cases, evidence is rarely just one document. Courts tend to look for patterns over time: stability, credibility, and consistency with the child’s best interests. Cross‑border proof usually falls into five buckets:

Income & resources: payslips, tax returns, employer confirmations, self‑employment filings, social benefits, and evidence of undisclosed income streams (where lawfully obtainable).
Housing & living conditions: lease agreements, proof of residence registration, utility bills, photos or videos of a home (only if lawfully obtained), and school catchment information.
Daily care of the child: school attendance records, medical appointments, extracurricular schedules, childcare arrangements, and witness accounts of routine care.
Communications & behaviour: messages, emails, call logs, co‑parenting coordination, and evidence of harassment or threats (again, lawfully obtained and presented).
Mobility & logistics: travel itineraries, flight bookings, border crossing patterns, and practical feasibility of contact arrangements when parents live in different countries.

Romanian civil procedure recognises documents broadly and includes records stored electronically. The Code defines a document as any writing or recording containing data about a legal act or fact, regardless of the medium (Art. 265) and recognises documents on an IT medium under conditions equivalent to paper where legal requirements are met (Art. 266). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 265–266 (legislatie.just.ro).

2) The non‑negotiable: legality, privacy, and admissibility

Clients often ask: “If I can get it, can I use it?” In court, the real question is whether the evidence is lawful and reliable. Even if a piece of information is factually accurate, the way it was obtained can undermine admissibility, credibility, and sometimes expose you to liability.

In Romanian procedure, material evidence includes photos, films, and audio recordings, but the Code expressly ties admissibility to lawful acquisition and good morals (Art. 341(2)). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 341(2) (legislatie.just.ro).

That is why cross‑border strategy should start with a simple rule: collect and preserve what you are entitled to access, and use court‑assisted channels for what you are not. In EU cases, the Taking of Evidence Regulation exists precisely to allow courts to cooperate instead of pushing parties into risky shortcuts.

3) Evidence inside the EU: how Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 helps

The Taking of Evidence Regulation applies in civil or commercial matters where a court of one Member State requests the competent court of another Member State to take evidence, or requests to take evidence directly in another Member State. Primary source: Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 (EUR‑Lex OJ); consolidated operational text: EUR‑Lex consolidated version.

3.1 Two main tracks: requested court vs direct taking of evidence

Track A: requested court takes the evidence. A Romanian court can send a request to the court abroad asking it to examine a witness, hear a party, collect documents, or perform an inspection. Under Art. 12(1), the requested court must execute the request without delay and at the latest within 90 days of receipt. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 12 (consolidated text).

Track B: direct taking of evidence. In some situations, the Romanian court can request to take evidence directly in another Member State. That route is governed by Art. 19, with important safeguards: it must be on a voluntary basis and without coercive measures, and the requested Member State’s central body/competent authority can set conditions or refuse on limited grounds. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 19 (consolidated text).

3.2 Video examination (where appropriate): what the Regulation actually says

One of the most practical upgrades in the recast Regulation is clarity on taking evidence by videoconferencing or other distance communications technology when examining a person present in another Member State. Art. 20(1) provides that the requesting court shall take evidence using videoconferencing (or other distance technology) where such technology is available and appropriate in the circumstances. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 20(1) (consolidated text).

Art. 20(2) ties the request to a standardised technical form (Form N in Annex I) and requires the requesting court and the requested Member State’s central body/authority (or the court assigned to assist) to agree on practical arrangements, including interpreter support where necessary. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 20(2) & Annex I Form N (consolidated text).

3.3 “Special procedure” and use of communications technology when the requested court takes evidence

Even when the requested court executes the request (Track A), the Regulation allows the requesting court to ask for a special procedure or for the use of communications technology. The mechanism appears in the request form and is linked to Art. 12(3)–(4). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 12(3)–(4) and Annex I Form A (consolidated text).

4) Romanian procedure basics: commission rogatory, documents, recordings, and interrogatories

Even in EU cases, Romanian domestic procedure matters because it governs: what you must plead, how you propose evidence, what the court will admit, and how the court evaluates it. The EU Regulation sets the cooperation channel between courts; it does not replace Romanian rules on relevance, burden of proof, or how evidence fits into the file.

4.1 Commission rogatory (comisie rogatorie): what it is and why it exists

Under the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, evidence is generally taken by the seized court, but if, for objective reasons, evidence cannot be taken in the court’s locality, it can be taken through a commission rogatory by another court (Art. 261). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 261 (legislatie.just.ro).

In cross‑border EU cases, courts typically rely on the Taking of Evidence Regulation for cross‑border cooperation. But the concept of commission rogatory is still useful to understand the logic: the court uses another judicial authority to take evidence where it physically sits.

4.2 Documents and electronic records

The Code’s broad definition of documents (Art. 265) and recognition of IT‑based documents (Art. 266) is particularly relevant for diaspora cases where most records are digital: bank statements, pay slips, emails, platform notices, and residence registrations. Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 265–266 (legislatie.just.ro).

4.3 Recordings, photos, screenshots: the admissibility tripwire

The Code lists common technical media (photos, films, sound recordings and similar) as material evidence, but only if they were not obtained by violating the law or good morals (Art. 341(2)). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 341(2) (legislatie.just.ro).

4.4 Questioning a party who is abroad

For parties located abroad, the Code contains specific rules on interrogatories. When no treaty/special act provides otherwise, a party abroad represented by a proxy may be questioned through that proxy, with the interrogatory communicated in writing and the answers given through a special authentic power of attorney (Art. 356). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 356 (legislatie.just.ro).

The Code also allows an interrogatory to be taken by a delegated judge or by commission rogatory in certain situations (Art. 357). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 357 (legislatie.just.ro).

4.5 Securing evidence before it disappears

If there is a risk that evidence will disappear or will be hard to take later, the Code provides a procedure to secure evidence (asigurarea probelor) before or during the trial (Arts. 359–360). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 359–360 (legislatie.just.ro).

5) Practical playbooks: how to build usable evidence from abroad (without shortcuts)

5.1 Income evidence abroad: what courts usually look for

In divorce and child support, the core questions are: what is the real income, what is stable, and what resources exist to support a child. For diaspora clients, useful evidence often includes: employment contracts, payslips, tax assessments, annual statements, and evidence of benefits.

The safest rule is: start with what is in your lawful possession (your own payroll portal, your own bank account statements, your own tax filings) and then move to court‑assisted channels for third‑party proof. If the other party controls the evidence (for example, income details abroad), your lawyer may propose a cross‑border evidence request within the EU framework rather than relying on unverified screenshots.

5.2 Housing abroad: proving stability and suitability

Housing disputes are rarely about luxury; they are about stability and suitability for a child. Useful items can be: a lease, proof of residence registration, letters from a landlord, utility bills showing continuity, school catchment details, and (sometimes) inspection evidence.

If the home is in another EU state and a Romanian court needs formal verification (for example, an inspection or a hearing of a local witness), the EU Taking of Evidence Regulation is the structured route. It allows a Romanian court to request evidence from the competent court abroad, and it also contemplates the use of communications technology for participation (Art. 12) and videoconference in direct taking of evidence (Art. 20). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Arts. 12 and 20 (consolidated text).

5.3 Daily care and the child’s routine: building a timeline, not a collage

The strongest parenting evidence usually tells a coherent story: who takes the child to school, who attends medical appointments, who manages homework, who provides emotional support, and how the child’s routine is maintained. In cross‑border cases, the most useful combination is often: official records (school/medical), neutral third‑party witnesses (teachers, childcare providers), and consistent communications between parents.

A practical tip that stays lawful: build a dated timeline (school terms, appointments, travel, handovers), and match each key entry to one reliable source (a letter, a record, a message you are entitled to access). Courts tend to distrust “dumped” evidence without context.

5.4 Communications evidence: messages that support parenting, not surveillance

Messages can matter, but courts care about relevance: cooperation, refusals, threats, admissions, and practical planning. Presenting messages as a chronological extract with clear context is usually more persuasive than hundreds of screenshots.

Because the Romanian Code’s admissibility rules for technical media depend on lawful acquisition (Art. 341(2)), your lawyer will typically prefer evidence you obtained from your own device/account or via a lawful disclosure route, rather than anything that looks like an intrusion. Source: CPC Art. 341(2) (legislatie.just.ro).

5.5 Witnesses abroad: credibility, logistics, and distance hearing

Witness testimony is common in family cases, but cross‑border witnesses create logistical friction: travel, time zones, language, and willingness. The goal is to make testimony possible without turning the process into an endurance test.

Within the EU, there are two practical avenues: (1) ask the foreign court to examine the witness under a request (Art. 12, with a 90‑day benchmark), or (2) if conditions allow, request direct taking of evidence via videoconference (Arts. 19–20). Sources: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Arts. 12, 19 and 20 (consolidated text).

A common strategic question is whether a witness should be examined by the requested court (local procedure) or directly by the Romanian court via videoconference. Factors include: the witness’s willingness, language needs, the requested Member State’s conditions, and whether the Romanian court wants direct control over questions. The Regulation anticipates agreements on practical arrangements and interpreter assistance for videoconference requests (Art. 20(2)). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 20(2) (consolidated text).

5.6 Expert evidence abroad

Experts appear in family cases when the court needs specialist knowledge: financial analyses, valuation, or technical assessments. If an expert must access a location abroad or a set of records abroad, plan for translation, costs, and timetable. In EU cooperation requests, costs are addressed in the Regulation (Art. 22, including the possibility of deposits/advances affecting the 90‑day clock). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Arts. 12 and 22 (consolidated text).

6) Video hearing and taking evidence at a distance: what is realistic

Clients sometimes assume that “everything can be done on Zoom.” In reality, distance hearings depend on three layers: (1) whether the legal instrument allows it, (2) whether the courts and authorities have the technical capacity, and (3) whether the judge considers it appropriate and fair in the case.

The EU Regulation explicitly frames videoconferencing as a tool for direct taking of evidence when examining a person in another Member State, subject to availability and appropriateness (Art. 20(1)), and it requires coordination on the practical arrangements via a standard technical form (Art. 20(2) and Annex I Form N). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 20 and Form N (consolidated text).

Separately, when a Romanian court asks a foreign court to take evidence, the foreign court executes the request under its own national law but must do so without delay and, at the latest, within 90 days (Art. 12(1)). If it cannot meet that deadline, it must inform the requesting court and provide reasons and an estimated time. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 12(1)–(2) (consolidated text).

For diaspora clients, the practical takeaway is: distance is not a barrier by itself, but it becomes a barrier when you wait until the last minute. If a key witness is abroad, propose a distance solution early, provide contact details, confirm language needs, and avoid over‑complicated witness lists.

7) “Letter rogatory” / comisie rogatorie in cross‑border reality

The term “letter rogatory” is often used informally to describe a court‑to‑court request to take evidence abroad. In Romanian procedure, commission rogatory is the domestic mechanism for taking evidence outside the court’s locality (Art. 261). Source: CPC Art. 261 (legislatie.just.ro).

Within the EU, the structured route for cross‑border taking of evidence is the EU Taking of Evidence Regulation. In practice, lawyers may still speak about “letters rogatory”, but the forms, deadlines, and channels are shaped by the Regulation (for example, Art. 12’s 90‑day execution benchmark and the rules on distance technology). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783 (consolidated text).

Outside the EU, the framework depends on the destination country and the available treaties or other cooperation channels. This article keeps the focus on EU mechanisms because they are the most common in Romanian diaspora family cases. If your case involves a non‑EU country, the first step is a tailored conflict‑of‑procedures check: what treaty mechanisms exist, how service and evidence interact, and what timetable to expect.

8) What NOT to do (and safer legal alternatives)

This section is intentionally blunt. Many clients lose time or credibility by bringing evidence that was gathered through methods that look illegal, invasive, or manipulative. In family litigation, the “how” can be as important as the “what”.

Do not access the other party’s accounts or devices. Even if you know the password or once had access, unauthorised access can be unlawful and can poison the evidence. Alternative: use your own lawful records, and ask your lawyer about court‑assisted evidence requests (EU: taking of evidence request to the competent court abroad under Reg. (EU) 2020/1783).
Do not secretly record in ways that violate the law or clear standards of good morals. Romanian procedure treats recordings as material evidence only if not obtained by violating the law or good morals (Art. 341(2)). Alternative: document relevant interactions through lawful means (written communications, witness testimony, official records) and seek court guidance where needed. Source: CPC Art. 341(2) (legislatie.just.ro).
Do not fabricate, edit, or “clean up” screenshots. If authenticity is challenged, you risk losing the point entirely. Alternative: preserve originals, keep context, and be ready to explain the chain of custody (when and how you obtained them).
Do not pressure witnesses or coach them. A witness who looks rehearsed can do more harm than good. Alternative: provide them with the date and basic topics, and let the court process do the rest (EU: witness examination can be requested via the foreign court under Art. 12 or by videoconference in direct taking of evidence under Art. 20 where appropriate). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Arts. 12 and 20.
Do not delay if evidence may disappear. Waiting is the easiest way to lose proof. Alternative: discuss evidence preservation/securement. Romanian law provides a mechanism to secure evidence if there is a risk it will disappear or be hard to take later (Arts. 359–360). Source: CPC Arts. 359–360 (legislatie.just.ro).

9) Client checklist: what to send your lawyer to make cross‑border evidence work

If you want your lawyer to build a cross‑border evidence strategy without losing months, send a structured package. The goal is to allow quick decisions: what to file, what to request through courts, what to translate, and what can be heard by video.

A one‑page case map: where each parent lives, where the child lives, and what countries are involved (residence, work, school, assets).
A dated timeline: key events (moves, separations, school changes, medical events, travel, incidents) with supporting proof references.
Witness list with logistics: names, roles (teacher, neighbour, family), location, language, time zone, and willingness to participate; note if videoconference might be needed (EU basis: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 20).
Documents folder with originals: your own payslips, tax statements, residence registrations, leases, school letters, medical confirmations, travel bookings; keep originals and a clean index (CPC’s broad concept of documents supports digital records: Arts. 265–266).
Communications extracts: relevant, chronological, minimal; include the full conversation where needed to avoid accusations of cherry‑picking.
Translation plan: which documents are not in Romanian and may need translation; do not wait until the court asks.
Evidence risk flags: anything that could disappear soon (platform messages, temporary housing, a witness moving) so counsel can consider securing evidence (CPC Arts. 359–360).
Practical constraints: upcoming flights, work schedules, school terms, and any urgent safety or stability concerns that affect timing.

10) Timing and delay reduction: realistic expectations (EU focus)

Cross‑border evidence adds time because it adds steps, not because the facts are less important. What you can control is the number of avoidable loops: incomplete addresses, unclear witness details, missing translations, and vague requests.

If the Romanian court requests another EU court to take evidence, Art. 12 sets a maximum 90‑day period to execute the request, and requires information to be sent if the court cannot meet that deadline. This is a benchmark, not a guarantee: complex requests, interpreter issues, and witness availability can still extend timelines. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Art. 12 (consolidated text).

If direct taking of evidence is requested (for example, examining a witness by videoconference), Art. 19 establishes the conditions and Art. 20 provides the videoconferencing framework. In practice, this route can be faster when the witness is willing, technology exists, and the requested Member State’s conditions are manageable. Sources: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783, Arts. 19–20 (consolidated text).

A practical rule that reduces delays: prefer fewer, higher‑quality witnesses and documents, and make every request specific. “Take all evidence about the child’s life” is a recipe for delays; “hear teacher X about attendance between dates Y and Z” is actionable.

Conclusions

Evidence from abroad is not a dead end. Within the EU, the Taking of Evidence Regulation gives Romanian courts structured routes: requests executed by the foreign court with a 90‑day benchmark (Art. 12) and, where appropriate, direct taking of evidence by videoconference (Arts. 19–20). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1783 (consolidated text).

Domestic Romanian procedure still matters for admissibility and credibility. Commission rogatory is recognised in the Code (Art. 261), documents are defined broadly (Arts. 265–266), and technical media are admissible only if lawfully obtained and consistent with good morals (Art. 341(2)). Source: Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (legislatie.just.ro).

The best results come from a lawful strategy that the judge can trust: clear narrative, indexed proof, realistic witness logistics, and early decisions about whether to use court‑to‑court cooperation or distance technology.

Sources

CTA

If your divorce or parenting case in Romania depends on proof located abroad, we can map the evidence, choose the safest legal routes (EU requests, videoconference where appropriate), and prepare a court‑ready package (indexed documents, witness logistics, translations). Contact: maglas.ro/contact.

This article is general information and does not replace legal advice tailored to your documents, the countries involved, and the applicable law at the time of analysis.