DIH v SIH, 2023 ABKB 146

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: DIH v SIH, 2023 ABKB 146 Date: 20230314 Docket: FL03 68291 Registry: Edmonton Between: DIH Plaintiff - and - SIH also known as SIS Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Douglas R. Mah _______________________________________________________ A. Background [ 1 ] This is an application by the father (DIH) under

Article 12 of the Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Convention for the return of a 4-year-old child to Romania. The father lives in Romania while the mother (SIS) lives in Edmonton, Alberta. The two are formerly a married couple. While married, the parents lived with their daughter in Romania.

After separation, all of them continued to live in Romania until the mother took their daughter on a trip to Canada and did not return. [ 2 ] Appearing on this application were the following: • Alberta counsel Goli Yohannes, on behalf of the Central Authority for the Province of Alberta, and acting as a friend of the Court; • The applicant father, assisted by his Romanian counsel;

• The respondent mother, assisted by her Romanian counsel, who was in turn assisted by an interpreter. [ 3 ] The two Romanian counsel, although not authorized to practice in Alberta, were allowed by me, under Rule 2.23, to examine their respective clients in-chief and cross-examine the other party during the evidence portion of the hearing, but they were not allowed to make argument. I understand that both counsel represent the same parties in the Romanian litigation, which I will describe in a moment.

The parties themselves were asked to sum up their positions, which I supplemented by asking questions that I thought were necessary. Ms. Yohannes did not take part during the evidence portion but did assist the Court with the law and by pointing out certain factual features found in the affidavits. [ 4 ] Both the father and the mother have familiarity with English as a second language. Some of the evidence put forward in- chief by the mother was through leading questions or contained hearsay, or both, but given the language challenges, I admitted the evidence and accorded it the appropriate weight. B.

Parents separate, mother wishes to visit Canada [ 5 ] On or about October 18, 2021, the couple divorced and settled parenting by agreement.

The agreement stated, among other things, that: • parental authority over their daughter would be exercised jointly; • the parties have mutual obligations regarding information exchange and consultation with respect to health, education and extracurricular activities; • the child’s domicile would not be changed by either parent without the other’s consent; • there would be the sharing of costs and the payment of child support; and • the primary residence of the child would be with the mother, and the father would have unrestricted parenting with some specific occasions stipulated. [ 6 ] The mother remarried a few months after the divorce.

Her new husband is a gentleman of Romanian extraction who lives in Edmonton but maintains strong ties to Romania, in that he had two other children living in that country at the time of remarriage. I understood from the hearing held before me on March 8, 2023 that those two children have now relocated to Canada with their father. [ 7 ] On November 15, 2021 the mother sent the father a text message with a 312 KB pdf attachment which was the “Declaration from Non-Accompanying Parent/Guardian for Minors Immigrating to Canada”.

From the screenshot originating from the mother that was sent to me the day before the hearing, it looks like the document was in English only. [ 8 ] The mother wished to travel to Alberta with her new husband and take the daughter with her. This discussion took place in the context of the mother expressing a desire to possibly move to Canada permanently to live with her new husband. The father said that he was assured that no final decision about immigrating to Canada had been made by the mother and she wanted to see and check out Canada first.

The father refused to consent even to a three-month visit for their daughter. He took the position that he could take care of her while the mother visited with her new husband. On December 9, 2021, she obtained permission from the Romania Maramures County Court (Civil Section) to take their daughter for a three-month period to Canada and to apply for a passport for that purpose. C.

First Romanian Court Decision [ 9 ] In that decision, the Romanian Court noted the following in its written decision: • the mother wanted to spend the winter holidays with her new husband in Canada to see if she liked it there, with a view to a possible permanent move; • the mother told the Court that the father refused to grant consent for the child to accompany her and tried to extort money in exchange for the consent; • the parties accused one another of irresponsible behaviour; • the father told the Court that he did not agree with the child moving to Canada as this would result in the almost total elimination of the father-daughter relationship; he felt he was quite capable of caring for her in Romania; • under Romanian law [Article 30(1)(

b) of Law No. 248/2005], Border Police Authorities will only allow a minor to leave the country with one parent if the accompanying parent presents a declaration of consent to travel abroad from the other parent, for a period not exceeding three years; • further, Article 483(1) of the Civil Code provides that parental authority is a set of rights and duties that belong to both parents, and thus all major decisions relating to the child must be jointly undertaken; one such decision is whether the child should leave the country; where the parents disagree, the Court may step in applying in essence the “best interests of the child” test, which accords with the test as it is broadly understood in Canada; [ 10 ] and reached these conclusions:

• the Court was making its ruling on a condition of temporariness, by way of interlocutory Order for a duration of three months, and was specifically not resolving the dispute of where the child should ultimately live; with the holidays coming up quickly, the requirement of urgency was also satisfied; • the Court acknowledged the father’s affection for the child and, as was clear from the evidence, he maintains a father-daughter relationship with her; however, given the attachment of the child to the mother, it would not be in the child’s bests interests to not accompany the mother on her visit to Canada; • even though the mother indicated in her application that she may settle in Canada in the future, the child’s residence in Canada was not proven at the application; • the mother in retaining the child in Canada longer than authorized by the Court would result in the father having access to a remedy under Romania’s adoption of the Hague Convention. [ 11 ] In the result, the Romanian Court permitted the child to visit Canada with her mother for a period of three months while suspending the requirement of the father’s consent.

The translation says the father’s consent was “supplemented” for the purposes of the three-month visit and for the signing of necessary documentation. I take this to mean that he was directed to sign the documents required to facilitate the visit. D. Two inconsistent declarations [ 12 ] Before me, the mother testified that the father contacted her on December 13, 2021 to advise that he had changed his mind and that he was consenting to the child relocating permanently to Canada after all. The father denied to me that he had changed his mind.

He said he agreed to attend at the office of the Professional Partnership of Notaries Bal, Baia Mare in order to sign documents to facilitate their daughter’s three-month trip to Canada and thought he was only doing what was necessary to comply with the Court Order.

Before Notary Public Cristina Maria Bel, the father signed two documents: • a declaration giving his consent for their child to travel to Canada with her mother for the three-month period (the travel declaration), with a specific return date of March 15, 2022; and • a declaration of consent for their child to immigrate to Canada with her mother (the immigration declaration), which was the same Government of Canada form previously sent to him electronically by the mother. [ 13 ] The two documents are, of course, incompatible with one another or, as an appeal Court in Romania later observed, “The two statements have a different content, so we consider that it is premature to conclude on the basis of the evidence administered in these urgent proceedings which was the mental representation of the plaintiff regarding the departure of the minor to Canada.” [ 14 ] Basically, what has happened now, is that the mother relies on the immigration declaration to say that the father has consented to the child’s permanent relocation to this country, while the father points to the travel declaration which limits his consent to a three- month visitation period. [ 15 ] When the mother did not return the child to Romania after three months, the father began this proceeding for their daughter’s return under the Hague Convention.

The earliest Alberta documentation on the file shows receipt of the application in Alberta in and around July 13, 2022, well within one year of the child leaving the other country.

He also brought legal proceedings in Romania. [ 16 ] The father also reattended at the Professional Partnership of Notaries Bal, Baia Mare on November 23, 2022 to make yet a third declaration which purported to revoke the immigration declaration, and stated that any consent to immigration was procured by the mother on her assurance that the mother and their daughter would return to Romania by March 15, 2022. [ 17 ] The legal proceeding he initiated in Romania was for an urgent child protective order which would have had the effect of returning the child to his care in Romania.

In that proceeding, the father alleged that the mother had posted videos of their child on TikTok in the nature of child pornography. The previous allegations from the mother’s application, going both ways about alcohol and drug use, were also revived. The mother alleged that the father was a criminal, was unemployed and in danger of losing his house, and had not paid child support. The father denied all of this. E.

The second Romanian Court Decision [ 18 ] On September 9, 2022, the Court of Maramures (Civil Division) dismissed the father’s application with these conclusions: • the child pornography allegation had not been proven; • the father had consented to their daughter’s immigration to Canada; • he was not otherwise in a position to care for the child in Romania; • at present, the child was better off with the mother in Canada than with the father in Romania. [ 19 ] With respect, and bearing in mind that I am working from Romanian-to-English translations of this judgment provided by the parties, the Court appears to conflate the two declarations with respect to the consent issue: … The Court points out that the plaintiff consented to the child’s departure from the country together with her mother.

It appears from

the WhatsApp conversations between the parties that the plaintiff was aware that the defendant had a stable life partner there, who together with the defendant also visited the plaintiff before his departure, and it is therefore highly probable that the defendant’s departure to Canada was not a short visit. From the applicant’s statement on file, it appears that he gave his consent on 13 December 2021 for the immigration of the minor with her mother to Canada, in fact until 15 March 2022, there being no mention of the final settlement of the minor in the official document.

However, it appears from all the evidence that the applicant had a mental representation in December 2021 that the defendant and the minor wish to settle there and gave his consent to their departure for three months. [ 20 ] However, the Court is clear that the only issue it was concerned with was whether there were urgent circumstances which warranted the child’s immediate return to Romania, with a final ruling from the Court on the issue of relocation to be made at some future date.

In this regard, the Court said: The interim order is without prejudice to the substance of the dispute between the parties, the Court deciding the present case only by reference to the urgent elements which concern the relations between the parties until the resolution of the substantive dispute. [ 21 ] The “best interests” approach taken by the Romanian Court here seems similar to that taken in Alberta with respect to interim parenting pending a full adjudication of a relocation (formerly mobility) application: Csorba v Csorba , 2017 ABCA 190 at paras 12-15 . F.

The Romanian Appeal Court Decision [ 22 ] The father then appealed this dismissal to the Appeal Court in Romania. The Maramures County Court, Civil Division I dismissed the appeal on November 16, 2022 using the “best interests of the child” test and saying that to uproot, return and change primary care of the child was not in the child’s best interests.

The Court: • confirmed the lower Court’s finding regarding lack of proof for the child pornography allegations; • acknowledged the father’s position that it was the mother who had offered him money in exchange for his consent, not the other way around, but ultimately made no ruling on the issue; • confirmed the lower Court’s finding that the mother was in a better position to have primary care of the child than the father, given his current circumstances. [ 23 ] The appeal Court also made the comment I quoted earlier regarding how it was unnecessary to determine the father’s state of mind with respect to the two incompatible documents that were signed.

G. Elements of the Hague Convention [ 24 ] The objectives of the Hague Convention are to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state, and to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one contracting state are effectively respected in other contracting states. These objectives are intended to serve several purposes.

Protection against the harmful effects of wrongful removal on children; deterrence of parents from abducting children by depriving the removing parent of any advantage they might have otherwise gained by the abduction; and allowing parenting disputes to be determined in the most appropriate forum, which is the jurisdiction where the child was habitually resident: Office of the Children’s Lawyer v Balev , 2018 SCC 16 at paras 24 & 27 ; CB v BM , 2021 ABCA 266 at para 26 . [ 25 ] Canada and Romania are both contracting states. A formal application has been made by the father and the child is under the age of 16.

Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction. [ 26 ] The next question is whether there has been a wrongful removal or retention in Canada from a contracting state? [ 27 ]

Article 3 states that retention means that a parent has taken the child out of the requesting state (here Romania) with the permission of the other parent with custodial rights (here the father) for a specified period of time (here three months) and has not returned the child when she was supposed to be returned, which is what has happened here. H. Habitual Residence of the Child [ 28 ] The first determination in whether there has been a wrongful retention is the habitual residence of the child.

There is really no question that the child was habitually resident in Romania up to and on the date of her departure from Romania. That was the finding of the Romanian Court when the mother applied for permission to take the child out of Romania. The child had lived her entire life in Romania up to that point. I further find that Romania remained the habitual residence of the child at the time of the breach of custody rights, if there was such a breach, occurred.

That would have been on March 15, 2022, the date on which mother and child were supposed to return to Romania. [ 29 ] I realize that in actuality, the child has now been 15 months in Canada, and by the mother’s account is well-settled into Canadian life and doing well. But one of the purposes of the Hague Convention is to prevent a parent who wrongfully removes or retains a child from acquiring a new status quo as a result of that wrongful conduct. For the purposes of the analysis, the date of the alleged wrongful removal or retention is the relevant date for determining habitual residence. I.

Breach of Rights of Custody

[30] I asked Ms. Yohannes whether the father’s rights of custody had been established in this case and she submitted that they had.I agree with that submission and will take a moment to state the legal basis. [31] In this case, the divorce settlement stated that both parties had ‘joint authority over the minor’, being the equivalent ofguardianship in Canada, but that the mother had custody (or primary care as we now say in Canada) and the father had generous andunrestricted access (or parenting time). The evidence I have before me is that the father’s access (or parenting time) was exercised.

Hetold me that he saw the child every day before she left and even the mother said the father saw the child once or twice a week. I also notethat the agreement stated specifically that the child’s domicile could not be changed by either parent without the consent of the other. [32] Whether there is wrongful detention here depends on the exact nature of the rights enjoyed by father in Romania.

TheSupreme Court of Canada in the case of Thomson v Thomson, (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 551 at pages 589 to 590commented that a non-removal clause in a permanent order of custody would normally be seen as an access right rather than a custodyright. However, as the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan observed at Bacic v Ivakic, 2017 SKCA 823 at para 45, this observation fromthe Supreme Court is not determinative of the situation in a case such as this. First, the SCC’s comment was clearly obiter dicta andintended as such.

Second, a good deal of international judicial decision-making since Thomson has reached the opposite conclusion. AsSaskatchewan Court of Appeal noted in Bacic,

Article 5(

a) expressly defines rights of custody as including the right to determine thechild’s place of residence, and here, under the agreement, the mother could not change the residence of the child without either thefather’s consent or Court order. Moreover, in the case before me, the father enjoys the full suite of parental entitlements andresponsibilities, except for primary care.

It is also noted that his parenting rights are to be “unrestricted”. [33] The Bacic case applied Abbott v Abbott, 560 US 1 [2010] the United States Supreme Court case that held that a non-removalclause confers a right of custody on the left-behind parent, entitling that parent to maintain an action under the Hague Convention. [34] Ms. Yohannes is therefore quite correct that the father had rights of custody that are protected by the Hague Convention. J.

What happened at the Notary’s office on December 13,2021? [35] It is clear that the Romanian Court, in the first decision, granted the mother only the right to keep the child in Canada for threemonths, despite believing otherwise as she says in her affidavit. The Romanian Court order, in translation, is plain in what it says. [36] Looking only at that Court Order and absent consent to the child’s immigration on the father’s part, the retention would bewrongful. The mother submits that there was specific consent in the form of the immigration declaration that the father signed in theNotary Public’s office.

She also told me today that the travel declaration was only needed to get across the border. Presumably, themother was referring to Article 30(1)(

b) of Law No. 248/2005 referred to above. If so, she had procured the document from the father forthe purposes of deceiving the Border Police because she was not planning to have the child leave the country for a period of threemonths, but rather permanently. She had the immigration declaration in hand at the time for use with Canadian authorities. [37] The father says the travel declaration he executed the same day shows that he was giving consent only for the three months.He does, I think, admit to some carelessness in signing the immigration declaration, a document that he says he did not read.

He said hewas told and believed the immigration declaration was required for “insurance purposes”. He said that he thought that document was allpart and parcel of complying with the Court Order.

The document was presented to him in both English and Romanian before he signedit and contains this line “I am confirming that I fully understand that I may be permanently separated from my above-named child.” Thefather said he was told by the mother not to worry because they would be coming back in three months. [38] The mother included in her December 1, 2022, affidavit a statement (in translation) from the Romanian Notary Public, BalCristina Maria, dated November 28, 2022 concerning the father’s attendance upon her on December 13, 2021.

This statement refers tothe father signing only one declaration, not two, and it is not clear which one.

The statement says: I mentioned that the document was not drafted by the notary’s office but was submitted by the party in English and Romanian, andbefore signing the document, Mr. [father’s surname] was asked if he had read the document and if he understood its content, his answerbeing affirmative. [39] Apart from not specifying which declaration is being referred to, the travel declaration or the immigration declaration, thestatement contains this paragraph, with its curious first sentence: At the time of the drafting of the document, I was not aware of any issues between the former spouses regarding the minor child.

I havenot been informed of any arrangements between them prior to the signing of the aforementioned declaration. My obligation as a NotaryPublic in these proceedings was fulfilled, i.e. I found that Mr. [father’s surname] was aware of the content of the deed, which hesubsequently signed before me. [40] The reason the first sentence is curious is because the immigration declaration is an official Government of Canada form,which may be downloaded in pdf format from the Government of Canada website.

How would the Notary know when the form wasdrafted to be able to say she did not know of any concurrent issues between the parents, if the notary had not drafted the documentherself?

On the other hand, the travel declaration specifically states that it was prepared by the Notary’s office: Drawn up by the Professional Partnership of Notaries Bal, Baia Mare, this date, date of authentication, in one original copy and 3duplicates of which one duplicate for the archives of the notary office, a duplicate is kept by the accompanying person and oneaccompanies the minor’s ID. [41] The father’s evidence at the hearing was that both declarations were presented to him, in English and Romanian, for signature

at the same time and he signed both as he believed he was required to do so under the first Romanian Court order. At the hearing, the father stated that the Notary prepared the travel declaration, confirming what the document itself says. [ 42 ] He also pointed out that the Notary’s signature on the immigration declaration is as a witness, not in the Notary’s official capacity as an authenticator of documents. The authentication process is described in

Article 148 of the Law on Notaries Public and Notarial Activity, Number 36/1996, the Romanian law quoted by the Notary in her statement as the justification for doing what she did. The father argued that since the immigration declaration was not being authenticated under Romanian law, the Notary’s evidence that she followed that law in having the father acknowledge he had read and understood the declaration is meaningless. [ 43 ] In the end, it remains unclear to me to which declaration the Notary’s statement in the mother’s affidavit refers.

The Notary was supposed to clear all of this up by giving in-person evidence at the hearing before me.

Indeed, Justice Kendell’s procedural order of February 27, 2023 stated at para 2: The hearing shall proceed on the basis of affidavit evidence and written argument previously filed by the parties but there shall be oral evidence on the single issue of the circumstances surrounding the applicant father’s signature of the declaration from Non- Accompanying Parent/Guardian for Minors Immigrating to Canada. [ 44 ] The procedural order then directed that the mother was entitled to 15 minutes of direct examination the Notary Public, Bal Christina Maria, after which the father would have 15 minutes to cross-examine the witness, with the mother having a further five minutes for re-direct, if any. [ 45 ] But this critical witness, the person who would be able to shed light on the circumstances of the signing of these two contradictory declarations, did not show up for the hearing before me.

I was simply told by the mother that “she couldn’t make it.” From Justice Kendell’s order, it is clear that the Notary’s evidence was supposed to be part of the mother’s case. K. Wrongful Retention? Or did the father consent to immigration? [ 46 ] While the Romanian appeal Court was reluctant to rule on what the “mental representation” of the father was in signing the two incompatible documents, I am required to make this ruling.

I find that it is more likely than not that the father did think that the net effect of whatever documents he was signing was that his daughter would be visiting Canada for only three months, not moving there permanently. I say that for these reasons: • The parties had only four days earlier finished bitterly litigating the issue of their daughter going to Canada for the three months. It seems inconceivable that four days later the father would, for no apparent reason, change his mind and agree that his daughter could move there permanently.

It also seems odd that if he had changed his mind and consented to the immigration that, upon the expiry of 3 months, he would bring legal proceedings in Romania for the return of their daughter, meaning that he had changed his mind again. • The Notary, the one witness who was present when the father signed both documents and could shed light on what happened when he did so and why, did not appear. This witness’ evidence was part of the mother’s case and was directed by the Court to be presented. I can and do draw an adverse inference due to the absence of the witness.

I infer that the Notary’s evidence would not have been helpful to the mother’s case. [ 47 ] On the factual issue of whether the father demanded €6000 for his consent to their daughter to go to Canada, which he denied, even on the mother’s evidence, this took place after the divorce but well before the December 9, 2021, Court decision as it was raised in argument in the mother’s application in relation to his refusal to allow the three-month visit.

Therefore, even if it did happen, it would not have been a factor on December 13, 2021, when the mother said that the father changed his mind about immigration. [ 48 ] It is also concerning that the mother would have one document showing the father’s intentions for use at the Romanian border and a different document showing different intentions for use with Canadian immigration authorities. Clearly the father cannot have both intentions at the same time. Even though she had both documents, the mother was not being forthright with one authority or the other.

This adversely reflects on her credibility with regard to her assertion that the father simply changed his mind about the immigration. [ 49 ] I therefore accept the father’s evidence that he believed the immigration consent was simply part and parcel of documents he had to sign to permit the child to travel for the three months. He may be guilty of carelessness in not reading the immigration consent more closely but, regardless of what it said, I accept he had been assured by the mother that both she and her daughter would return by March 15, 2022.

That is what the Romanian Court ordered, and that is what the father expected would happen. The very bringing of these proceedings in Canada, on a timely basis, speak to the father’s expectations. There is nothing in evidence before me substantiating that somehow the father had a change of heart and suddenly agreed to immigration as opposed to a three-month visit. L.

Summary, Conclusion & Order [ 50 ] Thus, I find he did not consent to their daughter’s immigration to Canada and that the immigration declaration was procured on the assurance that the mother was not relying on it and that she and the child were returning to Romania by March 15, 2022. His timely bringing of proceedings in this country indicates that he did not acquiesce. [ 51 ] I find that the retention is wrongful. [ 52 ] Accordingly, since this is a case of less than one year elapsing between the date of the removal and the date of commencement of proceedings, the return of the child from Alberta to Romania is mandatory.

[ 53 ] I further find there is no grave risk to the child returning to Romania. The evidence indicates the father is capable of parenting. I realize that the mother has made allegations about the father’s lifestyle and his financial status. That was not explored in a way at the hearing before me that allows me to conclude that there is grave risk. The facts here are similar to those described by Justice Ashcroft recently in Osaloni v Osaloni, 2022 ABKB 835 at paras 62-64 : [62] There are no allegations that the Father would ever harm the children.

While the mother has indicated that he is inexperienced in looking after the children, I do not find that any alleged inexperience would place the children’s safety or care at risk. In the circumstances at hand, I do not find that, if the mother chooses not to return, that the children would be unsafe with the Father or left without care. [63] The Mother has also set out alleged incidents of domestic violence including that the Father attempted to hold her hostage in the house on the night immediately prior to her leaving with the children, taking her keys and the childrens’ tablets.

She also says that the Father threw out her clothes out once while on a weekend trip and while the Father has never physically harmed her, more recently after his mother visited and was allegedly telling lies about her, the Father threatened to “beat” the Mother. [64] The allegations made by the Mother against the Father would, if proved, constitute domestic violence. I also acknowledge that domestic violence, especially if perpetrated in front of the children, harms children. However, the Father vehemently denies any domestic violence including any threats.

Further, the default assumption is that the Courts of the Contracting State have the “capacity to adjudicate the merits of the custody and access issues, including the allegations of abuse, and make the necessary orders to protect the best interests of the child”: Sampley v Sampley , 2015 BCCA 113 at para 41 .

The UK has a robust family law justice system, and the Mother can seek legal remedies in the UK if she has a reasonable fear for herself or the children. [ 54 ] I would say the same of the Romanian Courts, and I have had the advantage of reading decisions of that Court in this very case. [ 55 ] This is also not a case where the views of the child are relevant, given her age. [ 56 ] This disposition is consistent with what the Court of Appeal said in CB v BM at para 31 : The procedures under the Hague Convention are intended to be

summary and not a full custody and parenting trial on the best interests of the children. Rather, the children are to be returned to the jurisdiction where they habitually reside so that custody and parenting issues can be determined in that jurisdiction . [ 57 ] As Justice Watson of our Court of Appeal recently said in MOG v COG , 2023 ABCA 19 at para 38 : The whole purpose of the Hague Convention is for one legal system to defer to another one. Not for one legal system to sit in judgment of another one. [ 58 ] Accordingly, I order the return of the child to Romania.

To be clear, I am not changing primary care of the child from the mother to the father or changing any of the terms of the divorce settlement agreement reached by the parties. That is beyond my power to do at the moment. I am ordering the return of the child to Romania so that the Romanian Courts may deal with the issue of relocation of the child from Romania to Canada or the father can apply to have primary care switched to him under Romanian law. That is proper forum for dealing with the issue of the best interests of the child.

All I am doing is putting this matter back in the hands of the Romanian Court to decide where and with whom the child should live, which should have happened in the first place. [ 59 ] In consequence, the mother must return the child to Romania within 45 days. I realize that the mother is the primary care- giver and as the child is only 4 years old, it will be necessary for the mother to travel with the child. However, I do not have the authority to order the mother to return to Romania herself, only to return the child.

I therefore direct the parties to discuss with one another, through their Romanian counsel if they wish, a plan for the child either returning to Romania with the mother or, if the mother does not wish to return, then for a method of safe travel with a responsible adult and an interim parenting plan in Romania. [ 60 ] I include a police-enforcement clause that takes effect if the child is not on a flight to Romania by midnight on the 45 th day after this decision is issued. [ 61 ] Once the child is back in Romania, whether the mother is with the child or not, the mother is at liberty to bring a relocation application, or the father may bring an application to switch primary care to himself. [ 62 ] I ask that Ms.

Yohannes attend to preparation of the Order and I invoke Rule 9.4(2)(c), dispensing with the need of the parties to approve the Order before it is submitted to me. Heard on the 8 th day of March, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 14 th day of March, 2023.

Douglas R. Mah J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: DIH Plaintiff, Not Represented by Counsel SIS Defendant, Not Represented by Counsel Goli Yohannes for the Central Authority for the Province of Alberta