CASO

Descargar texto completo EN

Nombre del caso

Ortiz v. Martinez, 789 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2015)

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/US 1343

Tribunal

País

Estados Unidos de América - Competencia Federal

Nombre

Tribunal de Apelaciones del Séptimo Circuito

Instancia

Tribunal de Apelaciones

Juez(ces)

Easterbrook, Ripple, Reagan

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

México

Estado requerido

Estados Unidos de América

Fallo

Fecha

15 June 2015

Estado

Desconocido

Fundamentos

Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Apelación desestimada, restitución denegada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

4 13(1)(b)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(1)(b)

Otras disposiciones

28 U.S.C. § 1291; 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A).

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

Norinder v. Fuentes, 657 F.3d 526, 533 (7th Cir. 2011); Graber v. Clarke, 763 F.3d 888, 894 (7th Cir. 2014); Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729, 739 (7th Cir. 2013); Walker v. Walker, 701 F.3d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir. 2012); Khan v. Fatima, 680 F.3d 781 (INCADAT Reference HC/E/USf 1239); Norinder,
657 F.3d (INCADAT Reference HC/E/US 1138); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985).

Publicado en

-

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The appellant father and respondent mother lived in Mexico together with their two children, a girl and boy aged seven and 16, respectively, at the time of the proceedings. In August 2011, they all travelled to Chicago. The appellant returned to Mexico, but the respondent and children did not return. The appellant filed an action for return of the children with the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in May 2012. The Court ruled that there had been wrongful removal, but that an exception to the requirement of return applied for each child. The decision was appealed with respect to the girl only; the appellant argued that the District Court erroneously found that he had sexually abused her, and that therefore the Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk of harm exception should not apply.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return not ordered; the District Court had not erred in its finding that the appellant had sexually abused his daughter. Therefore, it had been established that the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned. 

Grounds

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

The trial court met the evidentiary standard for its factual determination that the appellant had sexually abused his daughter prior to her removal by the respondent.

Therefore, sufficient evidence had been presented to establish that there was a grave risk that the daughter's return would expose her to physical or psychological harm.