Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Queiroz v. Schuenck, Civ. 4:25-cv-40161
INCADAT reference
HC/E/US 1685
Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
First Instance
Margaret R. Guzman, District Judge
States involved
BRAZIL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Decision
12 January 2026
Final
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Return ordered
-
Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68, 79 (2020); Mendez v. May, 85 F. Supp.3d 539, 555 (D. Mass. 2015); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1065 (6th Cir. 1996); Bader v. Kramer, 484 F.3d 666, 671 (4th Cir. 2007); Moura v. Cunha, 67 F. Supp. 3d 493, 500 (D. Mass. 2014)
-
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
Facts
The parents were Brazilian nationals. They had a daughter and lived in Brazil for the first five years of her life. The parents were never married and lived separately. They had shared custody of the child as defined in a joint custody agreement.
The father consented to the mother travelling with the child to the US from 7 October to 27 November 2024 on the agreement that he would have more time with the child on her return to Brazil. On 20 October 2024 the mother contacted the father to inform him that an opportunity to pursue a master's degree in the US unexpectedly arose and that she planned to obtain a student visa to remain there with the child.
The father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child to Brazil.
Ruling
Return ordered. The father had rights of custody and there was no ‘grave risk’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).
Grounds
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
The Court found that the father had rights of custody. Though he was not the primary caregiver, he was routinely involved in the child's life, for example, he provided consistent financial support and routinely cared for the child on his own.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The mother alleged that the father engaged in a “pattern of abandonment” that would expose the child to a risk of psychological harm should she return to Brazil.
The Court found that the father had been consistently present in the child’s life and that the argument did not amount to a ‘grave risk’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).
The mother had left Brazil and sought to remain in the US to build a more prosperous life for her and her child, not to escape any risk of harm.