Advice Centre

Speak to a member of our specialist international team of UK family lawyers today on 0330 107 0107.

Introduction

This case centres around a father’s determined effort to regain contact with his son after being separated for several years due to a difficult family breakdown. The complexities of this case are heightened by its international aspects, as the family had relocated from Romania to the UK, after the child had been diagnosed with autism, requiring special care. The father faced numerous legal and procedural obstacles, both in Romania and the UK, which complicated his attempts to reconnect with his son. This case study explores the legal issues involved, the strategies employed by IMD Solicitors LLP, and the broader implications for international family law and child custody cases.

Background and Initial Issues

The case began when the family, originally from Romania, moved to the UK in the hope of providing better medical care for their son, who had been diagnosed with autism. Both parents had mutually agreed to the relocation. However, soon after settling in the UK, the father discovered that his wife had already filed for divorce in Romania and had sought sole custody of their child without his knowledge.

This immediately created a complicated legal situation, as the Romanian court had initially granted both parents joint custody. Yet, upon their arrival in the UK, the relationship between the parents rapidly deteriorated. The mother took their son and left the family home, leaving the father without any knowledge of their whereabouts. She refused to allow him contact with their son, and made allegations of domestic violence, accusing him of controlling behaviour and abuse.

The father disputed these accusations and explained that the couple had previously agreed to take their son to Romania for specialised autism treatment. However, once the mother left with the child, she refused to allow the treatment to proceed. Desperate to re-establish contact with his son, the father made two consecutive court applications. Both were dismissed – the first because he missed a hearing due to confusion over the time, and the second because he was unrepresented and unable to comply with court directions. The court even considered issuing a Section 91(14) order, which would have barred him from making further applications to the court, believing he was misusing the court’s process.

IMD Solicitors LLP’s Strategy and Court Proceedings

IMD Solicitors LLP became involved after the father’s second unsuccessful application. Given the sensitive nature of the case and the potential repercussions of a Section 91(14) order, it was essential to proceed with a well-structured legal strategy. The primary goal was to prevent the dismissal of a third application while safeguarding the father’s right to pursue contact with his child.

IMD Solicitors drafted a new application with careful attention to the accusations made against the father, particularly the allegations of domestic violence. They focused on demonstrating that the father’s primary concern was the welfare of his child, and that the previous failed applications were due to procedural misunderstandings rather than a misuse of the legal system.

One of the major challenges was overcoming the recommendations of CAFCASS, which had advised that any contact should be indirect, such as through letters or gifts, if the court found the domestic violence allegations to be credible. IMD Solicitors succeeded in persuading the court to allow supervised contact in a contact centre, enabling the father to eventually see his child after over three years of separation. This was a significant development, given that the father had not received any updates about his son’s medical or educational progress during that time.

In addition to securing supervised contact, the legal team also sought an order allowing the father to receive regular updates from the child’s school and healthcare providers. This was a crucial step in ensuring the father remained informed about his son’s wellbeing, and laid the foundation for re-establishing their relationship in the long term.

International Aspect and Medical Treatment

A key aspect of this case was the father’s desire to take his son to Romania for specialised autism treatment, which had been agreed upon prior to the family’s breakdown. As part of the third application, IMD Solicitors included a request for the court’s permission for the child to travel to Romania for this treatment. This decision will be addressed in the final hearing, which is scheduled for next year.

The international dimension of this case adds a layer of complexity, as decisions concerning the child’s welfare must consider the laws and medical options available in both Romania and the UK. The courts must balance the child’s best interests with the practicalities of international travel and treatment.

Key Legal Considerations

This case highlights several important legal issues, particularly the challenges of cross-border custody disputes and the handling of domestic violence allegations within these proceedings. The father’s failed attempts to represent himself in earlier applications underscore the importance of legal representation, especially in cases involving complex international elements and vulnerable children.

The possibility of a Section 91(14) order illustrates how the courts seek to prevent inconsiderate or repeated applications. However, as shown in this case, with proper legal representation, it is possible to argue successfully that multiple applications were genuine attempts to re-establish contact, rather than an abuse of the court’s time.

Conclusion

This case highlights the legal challenges of child custody disputes, particularly when domestic violence allegations are raised and the child has special needs. IMD Solicitors LLP helped the father secure supervised contact with his son after years of separation, providing a pathway to rebuilding their relationship. The final hearing next year will determine the long-term future of this relationship, as well as the decision regarding the specialised treatment in Romania. This case underscores the importance of clear legal guidance and a well-prepared strategy in defending parental rights in similar situations.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.

To find out more about our services, visit International Children matters and contact disputes section of our website.

Call us now to discuss your case 0330 107 0107 or email us at info@imd.co.uk.