Buscador de jurisprudencia

The parents met in Venezuela in 2012 and began living together in 2015. They had two children born in 2015 and 2021, respectively, both of whom lived in Venezuela their entire lives before their removal to the US.

The mother had family in the US and had traveled there with the children previously. Each time they returned to Venezuela. In June 2024 the father gave the mother permission to take the children to the US to see her family in June 2024 and to return to Venezuela on 18 September 2024. On 6 September 2024 the mother texted the father saying that she did not want to return to Venezuela with the children and that they would have a better opportunities in the US. In December 2024, the mother filed an application for asylum in the US. The application was still pending at the time of the hearing.

The father objected to the children staying in the US and filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for their return to Venezuela. 

The mother argued that the father had consented or acquiesced to the removal and retention of the children, that the children were now settled in the US, and that the elder child objected to returning.

Return ordered. There was no evidence that the father consented or acquiesced to the children remaining in the US. The father filed his petition for the return of the children within one year and, even if more than a year had elapsed, the children were not settled in the US for the purposes of Article 12(2).

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother argued that the father waited more than one year to file his petition and that this should be considered evidence to his consent or acquiescence to the children’s retention in the US.

However, the Court found that the father had tried to take action in Venezuela before this, and was clear that he did not consent to the children remaining in the US beyond the agreed period.  

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

The parents initially agreed that the children could remain in the US until 18 September 2024. The mother informed the father of her intention to stay longer on 6 September 2024. The father filed his petition in the US on 8 September 2025. The mother argued that more than one year had elapsed since the wrongful retention and that the children were now settled in their new environment.

The Court found that the wrongful retention started on 18 September 2024 and so one year had not yet elapsed at the time the father filed his petition. 

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

The Court went on to say that even if more than a year had elapsed since the wrongful retention, the children were not settled in their new environment. The evidence offered by the mother focused mainly on the children’s happiness in the US and not whether they had developed a “a stable, permanent and nontransitory life in their new country”.

Furthermore, though the mother had filed an asylum application, this application was pending and there could be nothing to protect the children or the mother from being deported at any moment. 

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

The mother argued that the elder child objected to returning to Venezuela. The child did not testify at the hearing and the parents offered contradictory testimony as to whether she was sufficiently mature that her view should be taken into account. The Court held that without having her directly from the child or an expert regarding her wishes, they had no basis upon which to make such a determination.