Romania just passed an anti-alienation law_

PAAI Banner


I copied and pasted a news release by PASG.

PAAI Admin on 18.04.2024 at 04:27


Romania just passed an anti-alienation law!

Hello, fellow PASG members

We are glad to announce that Romania just passed an anti-alienation law. This was approved by both chambers of the Parliament and waits now to be promulgated by the Romanian President.

Here you can read the changes with some explanations provided in English. It is suggested to use Google or other translator to elaborate further.

Thank you,

Cătălin Bogdan

ARPCC (Romanian Association for Joint Custody)

Romanian link to news agency:

Translated link to news agency:

Key changes that will be operated on the Child Protection Act (Law 272/2004 with all its subsequent changes):

1.     The term “parental estrangement” is defined inside the Child Protection Act. As per the initiators, they preferred this legal term rather than the term parental alienation because parental alienation is more in relation with psychology . We, ARPCC, will add that sometimes the mild alienation does not become visible as “estrangement” .. so it makes sense for the state to react to more complicated alienation cases and not to the mild alienation cases which likely will fade away). As per the definition of the law, the parental estrangement is that form of psychological violence by which one of the parents [or other people] intentionally, trough pursued or assumed actions, generates, accepts or takes advantage of a situation in which the child ends up showing unjustified or disproportionate restraint or hostility towards any of the parents;

2.     The law makes explicit that the “parental estrangement” is important by listing it explicitly, immediately after “abuse”, “neglect”, “exploitation”. This appears in all places where abuse/neglect/exploitation enumeration happens. Such change was needed because the local Child Protection agencies used to ignore the parental alienation claims from the alienated parent, because the “alienation“ was not explicit in the law. The alienation was, of course, included in the very general term “other form of violence against children” but for the Child protection folks it was a nice pretext to ignore such requests from the alienated parents.

3.     Because of point 2) very minimal changes were needed in the body of the text. As the child protection agency had procedures for intervention in case of abuse, neglect, “exploitation” that can be activated also in case of alienation. This may include actions that start with counseling and monitoring up to taking the child in the custody of the Child Protection (if the child cannot be left with the alienator but also refuses to go with the alienating parent) and of stripping the alienator from parental rights.

4.     In several articles the law makes gets stronger in term of replacing words as “child protection agency may do X” to “child protection agency is obliged to do X” – very important because in Romania we suffer mostly of incapacity and unwillingness of state agents (being them police, child protection specialists, city halls employees) to act and apply the law (on the principle you risk less if you do not act) when it was about the non-violent parental conflicts about visitation programs.

5.     The law grew 3x the (already high) financial sanctions for the people who do not respect the contact orders (but the procedure was/is quite long, efficient in taking the money of the alienator but not into restoring the contact)

6.     The law also comes with one innovation which we believe is a good one: the reversal of the duty for child transportation in case of visitation programs. Generally, is the non-residential obliged to go and pick the child for the visitation and return the child at the end of the visitation period. This historically prevented non-residential parent to see the child because residential parent could move the child to other address, not open the door or, worse, making child telling “I do not want to see my mother” – moment when even with the bailiff the procedure was cancelled (moving to the one described in point 5, inefficient to actually make the contact parent-child possible). Such a statement, from a child (“I do not want to see my mother”) was rarely or never considered by state authorities (judge, bailiff, police, prosecutor) that the alienator opposed. Now, the judges are stimulated to reverse this “obligation” making it simpler for State authorities (bailiff or child protection) to identify whether the alienator respected or not his duties. If the obligations are not respected than the very clear guilt (and sanction) will be with the resident parent.



The PAAI is a Members Association managing the voluntary register of Parental Alienation Professionals in Ireland and is registered with the Revenue Commissioner under tax number 3292541AH dated 1 September 2014.
Urgent contact per email to
Telephone registrar (when available) +353 87 977 4513

© 2014 - 2022 - tiny logo PAAI web page - Facebook Public Page Facebook Public Page




© 2004 - 2021  Admidio   -  Data protection