4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Beiuş. 5.  The applicant was married to I.T. and had a daughter with him, born in 2011. In May 2013 the applicant left the marital home and the child remained with I.T. On 21 May and 5 June 2013 respectively I.T. and the applicant filed for divorce and each sought sole custody of the child. 6.  On 10 December 2013 the Beiuş District Court granted the couple’s divorce and joint custody of the child, and decided that the child should remain with her father. In a final decision of 17 June 2014 the Bihor County Court quashed the above decision in part and decided that the child should live with the applicant. I.T. refused to hand over the child. 7.  On 4 July 2014 the applicant applied to the bailiff’s office for enforcement of the decision of 17 June 2014. On 5 August and 25 September 2014 I.T. went to the bailiff’s office alone and told the bailiff that the child refused to live with her mother. A representative of the Bihor Directorate General for Social Welfare and Child Protection (“the child‑protection authority”) was also present at these meetings. 8.  On 3 October 2014 the bailiff and the applicant lodged an action with the Oradea District Court, seeking an order that I.T. pay her 1,000 Romanian lei (RON – approximately 225 euros (EUR)) for each day of non-enforcement of the custody order. On 11 May 2015 the court dismissed the action on the grounds that I.T. had not opposed the enforcement and that it had been the child who had refused to go with her mother. It appears that neither the applicant nor the bailiff appealed against this decision. 9.  On 6 October 2014 the bailiff lodged a criminal complaint against I.T. for non-compliance with a court order, but on 23 January 2015 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Oradea District Court decided not to charge I.T. It considered that the reports drafted by the bailiff after each encounter with I.T. showed that it had not been I.T., but the child who had opposed the enforcement. 10.  On 4 November 2014 the bailiff, accompanied by a social worker from the child protection authority and the police, went to I.T.’s home. They asked to see the child to verify if she wanted to go with her mother. Initially I.T. refused, but eventually he brought the child out. The bailiff noted as follows:
“After [the mother] talked with the minor, I asked the minor if she wanted to leave with her mother, and she gave me a non-committal answer. However, I should note that, although the minor did not show an aversion towards her mother, she did not wish to leave with her mother. The social worker reached the same conclusion.” 11.  The social worker who was also present at the meeting noted as follows:
“The father refused to bring out the child, became uncooperative but eventually agreed that [the child] sit near her mother. The atmosphere was tense, the parents made reproaches to each other in front of the child and they spoke to each other in a raised voice.
When the mother tried to hold the child in her arms, the child started crying and held the hand of her father’s current wife tightly.
After the child sat for a while with the mother, [the bailiff] asked the child if she wished to leave with her mother. Although the child did not show an aversion towards her mother, she refused to leave with her.” 12.  On 13 November 2014 the applicant complained to the child protection authority that the social worker who had accompanied her and the bailiff on 4 November 2014 had been unfamiliar with the case, had questioned her motives in front of the child and had not known how to facilitate their reunion. It appears that she received no reply to her complaint. 13.  On 8 December 2014, at the bailiff’s request and based on the report of the visit of 4 November 2014, the child protection authority applied for mandatory counselling under Article 912 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a view to re-establishing a relationship between the applicant and the child. On 20 January 2015 the Beiuş District Court allowed the request and ordered that the child should follow a three-month psychological counselling programme. 14.  The objectives of the counselling programme were to assist both parents in establishing positive contact with the child, and to help rebuild the mother-child relationship. 15.  Several meetings were organised between 4 February and 4 May 2015. The psychologist met the parents separately and together and met the child. I.T. refused to allow the applicant to participate in the counselling sessions together with the child. He also asked the applicant to agree to postpone the enforcement of the custody decision for a year if she wanted to see her daughter during counselling. As the applicant did not accede to his request, he refused any contact between the mother and daughter during that period. 16.  On 16 June 2015 the psychologist submitted her report to the court and to the child protection authority. She noted that the child was well‑integrated into her father’s family, was emotionally attached to her father, stepmother and stepbrother, and was afraid that the applicant would come and take her away during the counselling meetings. She also noted that the father was not facilitating the relationship between the applicant and their child. 17.  At the end of the counselling programme I.T. agreed to allow the applicant to speak with the child on the telephone. The psychologist observed that the counselling had failed to diminish the child’s high levels of separation anxiety and ambivalent attitude towards her biological mother and had failed to reach the objectives set at the beginning. 18.  On 21 May and 22 October 2015 and 16 April 2016 the applicant asked the bailiff to continue the enforcement proceedings. There is no indication that he did so. On 22 October 2015 and 25 May 2016 the bailiff sought payment of the costs of the enforcement proceedings from I.T. 19.  On 8 July 2015 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against I.T. for refusing to comply with a court order and for alleged acts of violence against the child when the applicant had wanted to take her home. On 30 September 2016 the prosecutor decided not to charge I.T. The applicant did not complain about that decision. 20.  Meanwhile, on 2 June 2015 I.T. had lodged an application with the Beiuş District Court, seeking an order that the child live with him. At the same time he lodged an interim request with the same objective. On 30 June 2015 the District Court dismissed the interim request on the grounds that the child was already living with him. The court noted that the applicant had already suffered harm because she could not take her child home despite the court decision of 17 June 2014 (see paragraph 6 above). I.T. appealed, but on 27 August 2015 the Bihor County Court upheld the previous decision. 21.  On 17 February 2016 the Beiuş District Court also dismissed the main action lodged by I.T. concerning the child’s residence. The parents, I.T.’s new wife and the child were interviewed by a court-appointed psychologist who was tasked with assessing the family relations between the parties. She concluded that the child needed time to rebuild her relationship with her mother and recommended that a contact schedule be drawn up between them. She also recommended parental counselling. The court considered that there were no serious reasons to prompt a change in the child’s legal residence and that it was in the child’s interests to remain with her mother. 22.  I.T. appealed, but in a final decision of 29 September 2016 the Bihor County Court upheld the previous decision. The relevant parts read as follows:
“The minor must have a normal relationship with both parents, which presupposes that the current situation, where she is distanced from her mother, is overcome, because otherwise it will be almost impossible for her to re-establish a normal relationship with her mother, and this does not serve the child’s best interests.
The court does not deny the importance of a stable environment for the minor, including her home and the people who are part of her daily life; it considers, however, that at the present time preserving continuity does not serve the child’s interests to develop a normal relationship with both parents. The parties must understand ... that the minor must be supported in order to adapt to her new environment...
The court is not bound by the wish expressed by the minor to remain with her father, because she is of a young age and because the father has persuaded the minor not to go to her mother’s home. ... To hold that the child’s opinion is binding without exception would mean that the proceedings, including the hearing of evidence, are useless and that the court’s sole role is to take note of the child’s preference and decide accordingly.” 23.  According to the applicant, on 21 March 2018, the date of her latest communication to the Court, she had still not been reunited with her daughter.