Case Update (10 Dec 2025): Quintero Jaimes v. Tavera; child ordered returned to Colombia under Abduction Convention

The parties are unmarried parents to one child, age 11, who traveled to the United States with his Respondent Mother, with his Petitioner Father’s permission, and a return date of July 17, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the Respondent Mother notified the Petitioner that she and the child would not be returning to Colombia. Prior to that date, the child had always resided in Colombia, and had family there. The parents shared custody of the child, the Father had a visitation schedule, and there was a provision in their custody arrangement that the parents could not unilaterally relocate the child. Since July 17, 2023, the child and his Mother resided in four separate residences, and were apparently experiencing housing instability. The Mother applied for her and the child to remain in the U.S. through an asylum application, which was still pending as of the date of trial. She allegedly based the asylum application on one prior incident, in 2018, between her and the Petitioner, where the court concluded they both engaged in threats against the other, both pursued criminal charges against the other, and that the Mother failed to follow through with her charges (and the Father dropped his). The Father ultimately filed his petition with the district court more than one year from the date the Mother was to return to Colombia with the child, although the court, in a footnote, attributed this delay to the Mother, who was sent four separate letters by the U.S. Central Authority to voluntarily return the child, but neglected to respond to any of those letters. The child was interviewed by a forensic psychologist, who concluded that the child had a preference for remaining in the U.S., but no objection to returning to Colombia. The child further had only a few friends, all who were Hispanic (and two of whom were from Colombia also). He stopped playing soccer, because the fees became too much. He has not seen a doctor or dentist in the two years he resided in the U.S. The court, also noting that his legal status was unclear, noted, in a footnote, that this court was not tasked with determining the merits of the pending asylum application, but “the current administration recently halted all asylum claim determinations and has made obtaining a grant of asylum more difficult.”

The court ultimately concluded that the Petitioner Father met his prima facie case. The Mother argued a grave risk of harm to return the child, that the child was mature and objected to a return, that the child was now settled, and that the Father consented to the child’s relocation. The mature child objection was raised in a post-trial briefing. Nonetheless, the Mother failed to meet her burden on any of the defenses. Therefore, the Court ordered the child returned to Colombia.