Recherche de décisions

The parents, both US citizens, were married and had three children: two sons age nine, seven and a daughter age one, at the time of proceedings. The two older children were born in the US and were US citizens. The youngest child was born in Mexico and was a Mexican citizen. 

The parents and sons moved from Portland, Oregon, to Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, in June 2019. They built a life there and lived there continuously until February 2025 when the mother and sons traveled to Nashville, Tennessee. The father and the youngest child continued to reside in Mexico. 

The mother claimed the father had been abusive to her and the sons and the father said these claims are exaggerated. They separated at the end of 2024 but continued to co-parent. 

In February 2025 the mother and sons travelled to the US for a two-week trip. Their original return flight was cancelled due to bad weather. The mother initially said she would return in a few days but later said she would remain with the children in the US. She signed a one-year lease on an apartment in Nashville and enrolled the children in school. 

In May 2025 the father filed a petition seeking the return of the sons to Mexico under the 1980 Hague Convention. 

Return ordered.

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

The Court found that regardless of maturity, seven and nine is not a sufficient age for a child to determine where he will live. The Court also had significant concerns that the sons were impressionable, in particular, given their young ages, the fact that they had been in the sole custody of their mother, with minimal contact with their father, since February 2025, and considering the psychologist report and interview notes.

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

The parents gave different stories regarding the allegations of abuse. The Court held that, even if the events occurred as the mother had described, they must examine whether there are any measures that would sufficiently ameliorate the risk of harm to the sons caused by their return. In this case the Court found that such measures clearly existed. 

The mother could obtain a restraining order from the courts in Mexico, if necessary. In addition, the parties had previously engaged the assistance of numerous professionals in Mexico to guide their parenting and custody decisions. Continued engagement with these professionals could minimise psychological harm.

The Court stressed that an order returning the sons to Mexico was not a custody determination or an order that the children must reside with the father or even spend time with him; it was merely an order that a court in Mexico, not the United States, must decide these issues.

The Court reached the same conclusion with regard to the psychologist’s recommendation that the sons should not return to Mexico to prevent re-exposure to trauma and found that ameliorative measures would reduce the risk of psychological harm from a return. Such measures included, but were not limited to, treatment from the children’s therapists and other professionals in Mexico, the use of the courts in Mexico to resolve custody and visitation issues, and, if necessary, the use of the courts in Mexico to obtain a restraining order. 

Due to these ameliorative measures, the Court found that the mother had not shown clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk that return to Mexico would expose the sons to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.