Case Update (14 Jan 2026): Betancourt Diaz v. Benigno Figueredo; two children, ages 10 and 7, returned to Spain

The parties are parents to two daughters, ages 10 and 7. The family lived in Venezuela until 2019, when all four family members left Venezuela for Italy for better economic opportunities. For roughly 2 years, the family moved back and forth from Venezuela to Italy, and the children received Italian citizenship. In early 2021, the family returned to Venezuela, and the parents separated. In 2022, the Petitioner Mother and children moved to Spain, where they applied for and received temporary political asylum. Some time later, the Respondent Father moved to and applied for asylum in the USA. During the pending asylum applications, the parties, not wanting to travel outside of the country in which they were sitting, arranged to have the children travel back and forth. Therefore, the children visited the USA in December 2023 for a few weeks, for the summer in 2024, and for the summer of 2025. Their return ticket for their 2025 summer trip was August 22, 2025, and it was on that date, when the Petitioner called the Respondent to inquire about the travel, that the Respondent said they would not be returning. The Petitioner sought relief through the Spanish Central Authority, and filed her Hague Petition in the U.S. District Court on October 17, 2025. The court set the date of wrongful retention as August 22, 2025, and the parties did not dispute the children’s habitual residence, Petitioner’s right of custody, nor her actual exercise of those rights. The Respondent argued two exceptions: grave risk and mature child’s objection. The court conducted an in camera interview of the 10-year-old. The child’s psychologist also testified.

The Respondent’s grave risk defense was based on three primary arguments: that Petitioner disciplined the children by hitting them, that the Petitioner left them unsupervised, and that the Petitioner was sexually promiscuous. The court, after various credibility assessments, concluded that the Petitioner did physically discipline the children, but was not abusive; the only lack of supervision was when the 10-year-old walked five minutes from home, in a child-friendly neighborhood, to her tennis lesson; and, while the court found the Petitioner had been promiscuous, it didn’t rise to the level of a grave risk, and should be left for a custody court to determine how it impacts the children’s best interests. Therefore, the court did not find a grave risk of harm. As for the mature child exception, the court, having interviewed the 10-year-old found her to be not particularly mature, and found her influenced by her father’s discussion of the lawsuit, which was causing the children stress. The court stated that, as it views it, “life with her mom versus life with her dad are both acceptable options” and so the court construed the child’s views as more preferences, than actual particularized objections. The eldest child also “seemed to emphasize the same key points as Respondent - as if she had been coached on what to talk about…” while noting that the child’s answers remained inconsistent with testimony from other witnesses, and inconsistent with her own previous answers.

Therefore, the court ordered the children returned to Spain.