Case Update (14 Nov 2025): White v. Stover; court determined ameliorative measures in Mexico meant there was no grave risk to children diagnosed with PTSD

The parties are parents to 3 children, two of whom are the subject of this Hague Abduction Convention return petition in the U.S. District Court for the MD of Tennessee. The parents and their two eldest children, all of who are U.S. citizens, moved to Mexico in or around 2019 from Portland, Oregon. The youngest child was born in Mexico, remains in Mexico with the Petitioner, and the parties are in the process of adopting her. The parties signed a Family Agreement in late 2024 or early 2025, which included certain agreements on parenting, including reference to an “upcoming trip” in February 2025. It also included information for Respondent to take the “boys on trips as needed” and, after the end of the current school year, to take the boys for the summer either to Nashville or Denver, and, depending on how the summer went, and based on educational opportunities, to potentially spend one school year in the USA. The Respondent Mother took the two eldest sons to Nashville in February 2025, and ultimately did not return. The Petitioner Father filed a request to return the children in May 2025 in the district court, and proved his prima facie case. The Respondent argued three separate exceptions: that the Father consented, that the children were mature and objected, and that there was a grave risk of harm for their return. The Respondent hired a expert forensic to conduct an evaluation of the children, and that expert concluded they had a mature objection and that they suffered from PTSD and would experience trauma if returned to Mexico.

The district court concluded the Father did not consent to the children’s permanent relocation, and their Family Agreement’s reference to trips or a possible future relocation were insufficient to find his consent. Further, while the forensic expert testified that the boys objected to returning, the court found that they “have not attained requisite maturity for their objection to be determinative.” They cited to the expert who described their maturity as “age-appropriate” and the expert’s observation that one of the children’s “responses about his father could have contained language that has been influenced by others, particularly related to legal matters…” The court “has significant concerns that the sons are impressionable, in part because of their age.” Finally, the court concluded that, despite the expert’s opinion that the children suffered from PTSD based on some bullying in Mexico and some interactions between the boys and their father in Mexico, the court found that the children would not be subject to a grave risk of harm if returned, because of the availability of ameliorative measures in Mexico. The court specifically stated, “[e]ven if the events occurred as [Mother] has described and fall in the middle of the scale, the Court must (emphasis added) examine whether there are any measures that would sufficiently ameliorate the risk of harm to the sons caused by their return.” The court found that both parties were represented in Mexico, that the Mother was able to get a restraining order from the Mexican courts if needed, that they had engaged numerous professionals in Mexico, and engaging with those professionals would minimize psychological harm. The court concluded, “[b]ecause such ameliorative measures are available, the Court finds Stover has not shown clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk that return to Mexico will expose the sons to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.”