Case Update (16 Jan 2025): Pacheco v. Martinez; Children returned to Mexico under Abduction Convention
The Petitioner Father filed a verified petition to return two children, ages five and seven, from Tennessee to Mexico. The Mother admitted to having brought the children to the USA from Mexico in April 2024, without Father’s knowledge.
During the parties’ lives in Mexico, there were periods of time when they lived together, and periods of time when they did not. The court found that the Father had been and remains an active part of the children’s lives, and financially provides for them. The Mother had removed the children, taken them hours away from where the family had resided, in 2022, and filed for custody in a court in Pochutla, Mexico. That court issued an ex parte provisional order suspending the Father’s custody rights and requiring the Mother to maintain a residence in Pochutla and to advise the court if she changed her residence. That case is, at present, still pending. Three months after the Pochutla court issued its provisional order, the parties moved back in together in Oaxaca. The Father called a Mexican attorney to testify that the order ceased to apply when the parties moved back in together. Further, the District Court concluded that “Respondent cannot indefinitely suspend Father’s custody rights by filing a petition in Mexico, violating that order by relocating to Oaxaca, absconding to the United States with the children, and then failing to pursue her pending legal action in Pochutla.” The court concluded that, as of April 2024, the Father had custody rights under Mexican law.
The Mother then argued that the Father was abusive. The Court found that they often argued and did not get along well, and many of the arguments related to financial concerns. The court was unclear about the February 18, 2022 dispute that ultimately lead to the Mother moving to Pochutla, but then returning three months later. Any injuries that befell the children, and that were highlighted in testimony, appeared to “have resulted from accidents, inattentiveness, the actions of cousin Hector, or through the normal conduct of young children.” Testimony from the Grandmother, both parents, and the Mother’s brother, all indicated that the Father had never been violent towards the children. The court also heard from the Mother about a few incidents in front of the children that involved the Father locking her out of the house, throwing a jar towards her, and making her get out of the vehicle, but “these events cumulatively, the Court does not find the frequency or severity of these incidents to rise to a ‘grave risk’ of harm to the children.” The Father was actively involved with the children while in Mexico, and has been seeing the children regularly while in the USA. The Mother can raise her concerns with the Courts in Mexico. During the trial, the children were in court, and the “Court observed both children” and also noted that “they were playful with Father and seemed comfortable around him.”
Therefore, the Court ordered the two children returned to Mexico.
