What counts as “international child abduction” under the 1980 Hague Convention?

It is the wrongful removal or wrongful retention of a child across borders in breach of rights of custody that were actually exercised. The Convention’s core aim is the child’s prompt return to the place of habitual residence (not a final custody decision).

What is a Central Authority and what can it do?

Central Authorities cooperate across borders: they receive/forward applications, help locate the child, facilitate communications and promote a rapid procedure. In Romania, Law no. 369/2004 designates the Ministry of Justice as the Central Authority for the 1980 Convention.

If the case is within the EU, do we use only the 1980 Hague Convention?

Within the EU, the 1980 Convention remains central for return proceedings, but Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb) complements it with procedural timelines and tools for recognition/enforcement between Member States (with Denmark excluded, per e-Justice).

Are there key deadlines that can materially change the case?

Yes. The 1980 Convention contains important time-related provisions (including a one-year threshold in the return mechanism), and EU guidance highlights the need for speed in practice.

What should I do in the first 48 hours?

Stabilise the situation, gather core documents and evidence, contact the relevant Central Authority, and prepare the correct cross-border route (EU/1980 Convention/other instruments).

“If I have a custody order, the Convention guarantees return.” True?

Not automatically. Return can be refused only on limited exceptions under the Convention, and the analysis focuses on the return mechanism—not a full best-parent custody trial.

Will the child be heard?

Depending on age and maturity, child hearing can be relevant; Romanian implementing law sets specific rules, including mandatory hearing from age 10 in the Romanian procedure.

How do contact rights (access) work across borders?

The 1980 Convention contains provisions to protect access rights, and within the EU Brussels IIb facilitates recognition and enforcement of parental responsibility and contact decisions between Member States.

What about non-EU situations beyond return proceedings?

The 1996 Hague Convention provides a cooperation framework for jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition/enforcement of measures to protect children between Contracting States, often relevant for custody/contact beyond the return mechanism.

Can HCCH or the EU portals handle my case directly?

No. HCCH explains it has no mandate to assist in individual cases; official portals provide guidance and direct you to competent authorities.

International child abduction (Romania–EU–non-EU): rapid steps, timelines, authorities + 48h checklist

Important note: In cross-border child abduction or blocked contact situations, every day matters. The information below is a source-linked guide and does not replace case-specific legal advice.

1) First, identify the real legal problem

Return proceedings (Hague 1980): when a child has been wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained in another country, the objective is the child’s prompt return to the place of habitual residence. See the Convention text: HCCH – 1980 Child Abduction Convention (full text).
Custody / parental responsibility / contact rights (Romania–EU): within the EU, jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement are primarily governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb), with practical guidance on the EU e-Justice Portal – parental responsibility, custody and contact rights.
Non-EU protective measures framework: for many non-EU situations (where states are parties), the relevant framework can be the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (full text).

2) The 1980 Hague Convention in plain terms: what it does (and does not) do

What it does: it creates a procedural mechanism to secure the child’s prompt return to the place of habitual residence after a wrongful removal/retention, and it supports cooperation to protect access/contact rights. See the 1980 Convention text and HCCH – Child Abduction Section.

What it does not do: it is not a “fast custody trial”. The return procedure is meant to restore the status quo and leave long-term custody/contact decisions to the courts of the child’s habitual residence—subject to limited exceptions under the Convention. For practice standards and operational guidance, see HCCH – Guides to Good Practice.

3) Central Authorities: who helps, and who decides

Central Authority: supports cross-border cooperation, receives/forwards applications, helps locate the child, facilitates communications and promotes rapid handling. Romania’s implementing law designates the Romanian Ministry of Justice as the Central Authority. See Romania – Law no. 369/2004 (Portal Legislativ).
Court: decides the return application (and connected measures) under the applicable instrument and national procedure.
HCCH’s role: HCCH states it has no mandate to assist in individual cases; it provides the instruments, resources and coordination framework. See HCCH – Child Abduction Section.

4) When the child is in Romania: Romania’s return procedure (Hague 1980 implementation)

If the child is located in Romania and the other parent seeks return under the 1980 Convention, the key procedural framework is Romania’s implementing law: Law no. 369/2004. High-level check-points you can verify in the law include:

Central Authority: Ministry of Justice (designated by law). Law no. 369/2004.
Competent court: the law allocates competence for return applications to a tribunal. Law no. 369/2004.
Urgency / expedited handling: the law provides urgency and short intervals in scheduling. Law no. 369/2004.
Child hearing: the child has the right to be heard; the Romanian law provides mandatory hearing from age 10. Law no. 369/2004.
Protective / anti-flight measures: the Romanian law allows interim measures (including measures related to the child’s travel documents where risk exists). Law no. 369/2004.
Practical enforcement: if return is not voluntary, enforcement mechanisms (including bailiff involvement) are provided in the law. Law no. 369/2004.

5) EU cases: Brussels IIb + Hague 1980 (how they fit together)

Within the EU, Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb) complements the 1980 Convention and supports faster handling and smoother cross-border recognition/enforcement. Official practical explanations are on e-Justice – Brussels IIb overview and the topic page e-Justice – parental child abduction.

Speed expectations: e-Justice explains Brussels IIb builds on the 1980 return mechanism and complements it, including procedural timelines and Central Authority cooperation elements. e-Justice – Brussels IIb overview.
Recognition/enforcement tools: e-Justice highlights that cross-border enforcement uses a copy of the decision and a relevant certificate, with standard forms available. overview and Brussels IIb forms (EN).
Scope note: e-Justice states Brussels IIb applies in EU Member States except Denmark and has applied since 1 August 2022. e-Justice – parental responsibility/contact rights.

6) Emergency checklist: the first 48 hours (practical, without panic)

The goal is to prevent “loss of trail” and build the minimum evidence bundle for the correct route (EU / Hague 1980 / non-EU). If there is an immediate safety risk, use local emergency channels as well.

Write a precise timeline: dates/times, last known location, who decided, what agreements existed.
Collect core documents: child’s birth certificate; any custody/contact orders or agreements; proof of the child’s habitual-life centre (school/nursery, doctor, address, routine).
Secure digital evidence: messages, emails, chats, travel tickets/reservations, school communications. Preserve originals and metadata; avoid editing files.
Contact the relevant Central Authority: for Hague 1980 applications and/or EU cooperation. In Romania, Law no. 369/2004 designates the Ministry of Justice as Central Authority. Law no. 369/2004.
Think “anti-flight” measures: if there is risk of further movement, Romanian procedure allows interim measures related to the child’s travel documents. Law no. 369/2004.
Keep communications short and factual: avoid wording that could be construed as after-the-fact consent; prioritise locating the child and safety.
List institutions and witnesses: school, afterschool, doctors, coaches, relatives—anyone who can confirm the child’s habitual residence and routine.
Use official guidance pages: e-Justice – parental child abduction and HCCH – Child Abduction Section.

7) Evidence and communication: what matters in practice

Habitual residence is evidence-driven: school attendance, healthcare, routine, housing and community ties often matter more than broad statements.
Actual exercise of custody/access rights: preserve proof you exercised your rights (pick-ups, handovers, travel, payments, dated communications).
Official documents from abroad: Romania’s implementing law contains special rules for using documents from the requesting state’s authorities within the Romanian return procedure. Law no. 369/2004.
Child-centred communication: avoid putting the child in the middle; keep a calm, consistent tone to reduce escalation and implementation problems later.

8) Myths vs reality (that change the strategy)

Myth	Reality	Where to verify
“The 1980 Convention decides final custody.”	It is primarily a return mechanism; long-term custody/contact decisions are generally for the courts of the child’s habitual residence.	HCCH – 1980 Convention
“Inside the EU, the 1980 Convention doesn’t matter.”	Brussels IIb builds on and complements the 1980 mechanism (speed, certificates, forms, enforcement tools).	e-Justice – Brussels IIb overview
“Waiting reduces conflict, so it helps.”	Delay can undermine practical options; official guidance emphasises prompt action, and the Convention contains time-related provisions (including a one-year threshold).	e-Justice – abduction; HCCH – 1980 Convention
“HCCH or portals will handle the case for me.”	HCCH states it cannot assist individual cases; portals provide guidance and point to competent authorities.	HCCH – Child Abduction Section

9) Contact schedule (access rights): how to reach real-world enforcement

A contact schedule works only when it is clear and enforceable in practice. The legal route differs if enforcement is domestic (Romania), within the EU (Brussels IIb), or non-EU (often Hague 1996 + national law, depending on treaty status).

Romania (domestic): aim for a clear enforceable title (court decision / agreement with legal effect) and practical handover rules (time, place, holidays, communication). Where repeated obstruction exists, enforcement planning becomes crucial and is often handled locally.
EU: e-Justice explains basic enforcement logic across Member States: you typically need a copy of the decision and the relevant certificate; standard forms exist under Brussels IIb. See overview and Brussels IIb forms.
Non-EU: check whether the country is a party to Hague 1996 (protective measures/custody/contact recognition) and/or Hague 1980 (return). HCCH – 1996 Convention; HCCH – 1980 status table.

10) When to involve a local lawyer (and why it can be decisive)

Urgent interim measures are needed: including anti-flight measures allowed by Romanian procedure in the return context. Law no. 369/2004.
EU cross-border enforcement is required: certificates/forms and coordination between jurisdictions. Brussels IIb forms.
Non-EU treaty coverage is uncertain: quickly verifying whether the relevant country is a party (1980/1996) can reshape the route. 1980 status.