Buscador de jurisprudencia

The parents lived in Tijuana, Mexico, and had an 11 year old daughter. 

In July 2022 the mother took the child to Las Vegas without the consent of the father. 

In May 2023 the father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention in Mexico. He did not file a petition in the District Court of Nevada until May 2024, more than one year after the child’s removal.

Return refused, the child was now well-settled in the US. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The mother argued that, despite the fact that the child lived and went to school in Mexico, her habitual residence before removal was in the United States. She claimed that her and the child would frequently cross the border for extracurricular activities, medical appointments, to shop, to visit family members who lived in California etc.

The Judge took all factors into consideration and held that, though the child regularly visited California, her habitual residence was in Mexico. She went to school in Mexico, had friends there and slept in her home in Tijuana. 

The mother also argued that Mexico was not the place of habitual residence because neither her nor the father had an intention to reside permanently there. She claimed they moved that for the sole purpose of saving money to buy a house in Southern California. Again, the Judge held that this did not affect the habitual residence of the child.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

The mother further argued that, even if the child's habitual residence was in Mexico, the Court should not order her return because she was now well settled in the United States. 

The Judge held that the father had filed his petition in the Nevada court more than one year after the wrongful removal. Though the father argued that he had already filed a position in Mexico in 2023, the Judge held that the relevant date was when the petition was filed in the US, the date of that Mexican filing was irrelevant.

The Judge considered all the evidence and found that for three years the child had attended school in this US. She was an excellent student with good attendance and close friendships. She also took part in many extracurricular activities and was involved in the church. The judge found that this showed her settled status in the US and declined to order the return of the child to Mexico.