Buscador de jurisprudencia

The parents met in Oregon in 2020. The father was a ‘spiritual healer’. They met when the mother sought treatment from him for situational depression. They began living together, travelling around the US in the father’s trailer before settling in Oregon.

The mother discovered she was pregnant in May 2022 and in October 2022 they decided to move to Mexico. Both parties and the child are US citizens, none of them have Mexican citizenship, nor did they apply for Mexican visas.

The father had a history of violence and incidents of rage. After a violent incident in June 2024, the mother took the child to the United States without the agreement of the father. The mother filed for a restraining order against the father. 

The father made an application under the 1980 Convention for the return of the child to Mexico. At the time of the hearing, their daughter was just over two years old. 

The mother argued that a return to Mexico would put the child at grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention.

Return refused. 

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

There was video evidence of the father’s fits of rage and proof that he inspired fear in the child. He had also physically assaulted the mother in the presence of the child. This amounted to clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm should the child be returned to Mexico. 

Undertakings

The Court found that anger management classes for the father would be insufficient to protect the child. Additionally, the Court was not convinced that the father would comply with any undertakings given his of disregard for judicial and other authority after he repeatedly violated his restraining orders, escaped from Sheridan prison camp, and behaved in an aggressive and abusive manner to state court judges during proceedings.

The father did not raise any potential undertakings or propose ameliorative measures and so the court declined to exercise its discretion in this regard.