Case Update (12 Jan 2026): Queiroz v. Schuenck; deviations from visitation schedule are not abandonment or a grave risk
The parties are unmarried parents to a child born in Brazil, who had lived her entire life in Brazil until the child’s retention in Massachusetts, and who was the subject of her parents’ joint custody agreement, incorporated into a Brazilian court order. The agreement provided for the Petitioner to have predominantly weekend access, and for the parents to agree to any travel outside of Brazil that might conflict with this access. The Respondent requested permission to travel with the child to the USA for an extended period of time in late 2024. The Petitioner agreed to the child’s travel to the USA in return for makeup time with the child upon the child’s return, but did not consent to the Respondent’s ultimate decision to stay in Massachusetts to pursue a master’s degree. The Petitioner executed an international travel authorization that set the term of the child’s travel for between October 7, 2024 and November 27, 2024 and did “not constitute authorization for permanent residence abroad.”
When the Respondent alerted the Petitioner she was unwilling to return with the child due to her opportunity to pursue a masters degree, and the Petitioner’s refused to consent to the child remaining beyond November 27, 2024, the parties resorted to the Brazilian legal system. Respondent sought an order suspending the Petitioner’s custody rights, which was denied twice. Petitioner sought the child’s return under the Hague Abduction Convention, and filed a criminal action against the mother for child abduction.
In the Hague Abduction Convention matter before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner was not actually exercising his rights of custody under the parties’ agreement and further argued that returning the child to Brazil would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. She cited to two instances of Petitioner declining to visit his daughter, instances of him deviating from their co-parenting schedule, his “allegedly inadequate financial support”, and his “alleged absence from the child’s school and pediatrician appointments.” The court found this evidence to fall short of a showing that the Petitioner Father had abandoned his child, and therefore the court found he was exercising his rights of custody, and concluded this evidence does not indicate any grave risk of harm upon the child’s return.
Therefore, the child was ordered returned to Brazil.
