Experts from the Istanbul Convention call on Romania to remove “parental alienation” from its legislation

GREVIO calls for the removal of the concept introduced by Law 123/2024 and a ban on using similar notions in courts, warning that they can discredit legitimate accounts of domestic violence and conceal the reasons why a child refuses contact with an abusive parent. Romanian authorities dispute some of the conclusions regarding court practice and say that judicial training already presents the controversial nature and risks of the concept.

Romania should remove the concept of “parental alienation” and similar notions from its legislation and prevent their use in courts when they could turn victims of domestic violence into parents portrayed as hostile or uncooperative, recommends the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO.

GREVIO’s first thematic report on Romania considers that the protection of women and children in custody and visitation proceedings remains insufficient and calls on courts to systematically verify whether there is a history of violence before deciding on contact between children and parents. At the same time, the assessment acknowledges several reforms adopted by Romania but continues to identify problems concerning services for victims, funding, administrative data, investigations and the enforcement of protection orders.

In brief
GREVIO calls for the removal of the concepts of “parental alienation” and similar notions from Romanian legislation and requests that they not be used in courts to discredit victims of domestic violence.

Law 123/2024 introduced “parental alienation” into the Child Protection Law as a form of psychological violence and gave courts and child protection services tools to act when it is established.

GREVIO warns that a child’s refusal to maintain contact with a parent may be based on trauma or fear caused by violence and that the analysis must begin with the concrete facts, the history of abuse and the risk to the child.

Romanian authorities dispute the general conclusion regarding court practice, which they consider insufficiently supported by studies and statistical data, and state that judicial training already presents the risk that the concept could be used to continue control or discredit allegations of violence.

Beyond custody disputes, GREVIO calls on Romania to provide stable funding for specialized services, integrated centers for rape victims, comparable administrative data and more effective enforcement of rules concerning investigations, prosecutions and protection orders.

The issue of “parental alienation” became a legislative matter in Romania through Law 123/2024, which amended Law 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of children’s rights. The law defines parental alienation as a form of psychological violence in which a parent or another person intentionally causes or maintains an unjustified or disproportionate reluctance or hostility by the child toward the other parent.

The law introduced the concept at several stages of assessing the child’s best interests and allows interventions by courts, social services and child protection structures. GREVIO considers, however, that this framework can become problematic when applied in disputes that also involve allegations or a history of domestic violence.

Experts say that a child exposed to violence by one parent against the other may refuse visits or contact because of fear and the effects of abuse. If such a reaction is primarily interpreted as the result of manipulation by the other parent, the history of violence and the risks after separation may be relegated to the background.

GREVIO warns that such litigation can also create new forms of control over a victim after separation. In its assessment, allegations of alienation can lead to pressure on the mother to comply with contact schedules, fines, criminal proceedings or, in certain situations, the loss of parental rights. The report does not claim that this outcome occurs in every case, but considers that the risk justifies removing the concept from legislation.

The recommendation is issued at the priority level “urges”, the highest of the levels used by GREVIO for its proposals to states. The group calls for three main changes. Romania should remove the concepts of parental alienation and similar notions, ensure in-depth training for judges, prosecutors, psychologists and child protection specialists on the dynamics of domestic violence and abuse after separation, and require family courts to verify and effectively take into account the history of violence in decisions concerning custody and visitation.

The criticism is not appearing internationally for the first time. In 2025, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Romania immediately repeal the provisions of Law 123/2024 concerning “parental alienation”. The committee cited the lack of a sufficiently clear definition, the possibility of using the concept in custody disputes and the potential impact on the child’s best interests.

GREVIO notes that, following these criticisms, Romanian authorities began parliamentary discussions on amending the legislation. According to information received by the experts, one option would be to redefine rather than eliminate the concept, using a notion equivalent to “parental estrangement”. GREVIO considers that changing the terminology does not solve the problem if the mechanism can still be used to question accounts of violence or a child’s justified refusal to maintain contact with an abusive parent.

Romanian authorities responded separately to the assessment and dispute some of GREVIO’s conclusions. In comments submitted alongside the report, they argue that statements about court practices in custody cases are insufficiently supported in the absence of studies, statistical analyses or public reports that would allow the scale of the phenomenon to be verified. They also emphasize judges’ independence in interpreting and applying the law in each case.

Romania also states that the National Institute of Magistracy does not present the concept of parental alienation as undisputed. According to the authorities’ comments, courses for magistrates explain that a significant part of the scientific community considers it pseudoscientific and examine the risk that it could be used by abusers to continue control, discredit allegations of domestic violence or label mothers as uncooperative.

According to the Romanian authorities, the training recommends that judges and prosecutors first verify the reasons why the child refuses contact with a parent. If violence, abuse or neglect are proven, any behavior by the other parent characterized as “alienating” is no longer relevant to applying the concept provided for under domestic legislation.

The GREVIO report is broader than this dispute. The experts welcome the adoption of Law 53/2026 on preventing and combating femicide, the national strategy on equality and domestic violence, the increase in the number of shelters, the criminalization of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and the extension of protection orders beyond domestic violence.

However, the assessment also identifies persistent shortcomings. Romania still lacks a harmonized system allowing comparable monitoring of cases across the police, prosecutors’ offices, courts, medical services and social services. GREVIO says this makes it difficult to measure prosecution, case discontinuation, conviction and recidivism rates.

Romanian authorities respond that the Police already collects detailed data on domestic violence, protection orders, victims and perpetrators and that the future ECRIS V system will enable integrated electronic management of criminal case files among the institutions involved. They also point to the nationwide expansion of the electronic monitoring system.

In criminal matters, GREVIO welcomes amendments limiting the possibility that a victim’s withdrawal of a complaint will automatically lead to the termination of certain proceedings. The report also commends the introduction of audiovisual recording of interviews and the development of a guide for investigating rape, but calls for consistent application of existing legislation and data allowing cases to be tracked from the initial report through the final decision.

The report also calls for sufficient specialized services distributed more evenly across the country, sustainable funding and integrated centers for rape victims, where medical, psychological, forensic and counseling assistance can be received free of charge and in one place.

GREVIO’s assessment is not a judicial ruling and does not itself remove the provisions of Law 123/2024. It forms part of the monitoring mechanism of the Istanbul Convention and sets out the changes that the independent group of experts considers Romania must make to better align its practice and legislation with the obligations undertaken under the convention.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/expertii-conventiei-de-la-istanbul-cer-romaniei-sa-elimine-instrainarea-parentala-din-legislatie