Case Law Search

The parents were not married but lived together. In 2014 they had a child, born in Bucaramanga, Colombia. 

In 2016 the mother moved to Bogota with the child to begin a new job and the father began paying child support. The father would occasionally travel to Bogota to get the child and bring him back to Bucaramanga for one to two-week visits. During these visits, the child would stay with the father in his parents’ home.

The parents entered into a custody agreement granting them shared custody of the child, giving the father visitation rights, and requiring him to pay monthly child support to the mother. The agreement also prohibited the mother from moving with the child to another city in Colombia (other than Bucaramanga) or abroad without the authorisation of the father. 

The parents' relationship deteriorated and the mother filed a criminal complaint against the father after a violent altercation between him and her then-husband. 

The child continued to have contact with the father and, in early 2021, the mother and child moved back to Bucaramanga. They did many activities together and the father paid for his private school tuition and extracurricular activities.  

In June 2023 the mother brought the child to the US on holiday. The father signed a trip authorisation form stating that they would return a few weeks later. 

In July 2023 the mother informed the father that her and the child would not be returning to Colombia. 

Five days later the father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child. 

Return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The court found that the child was habitual resident in Colombia. His life in Colombia was continuous and settled before he came to the United States with a large extended family who he saw regularly.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

The mother did not meet the burden of establishing that the child was settled in the US. The mother and child faced housing instability and moved many times since their arrival. 

An expert opinion said that the child was not well-settled but rather “in the process of adjustment”. The Court noted that he had three good friends, but all of whom were hispanic and two were Colombian. Though he completed the school year, he was often absent or late. The child had not seen a physician or a dentist for care since coming to the US and his lack of routine, preventative medical care indicated that he was not settled there.

Furthermore, the mother did not have a driving licence which somewhat prevented her from integrating further in the community.

The mother and child also had no extended family support and their legal status in the US was unclear as the mother had filed an asylum claim for her and the child which was pending. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

There was no evidence of a grave risk of harm to the child and some of the mother’s allegations were not credible. 

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

The Court did not find that the child, at age 11, was sufficiently mature enough to take his objections into account. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that he was a polite and friendly child of normal intellect who loved his parents. Nothing suggested that he was exceptionally mature. 

Even if the child were mature enough for the Court to take his views into account, he did not appear to have a solid objection to returning to Colombia. A preference is not an objection and he wavered between wanting to return to Colombia and wanting to stay in the US.