Case Update (16 Sept 2025): Urrutia v. Flores; child settled in USA and not returned to Mexico
The parties are parents to a 4-year-old son. They lived in Mexico, as did the child, who was subject of a Mexican custody order giving the Respondent Mother primary physical custody and the Petitioner Father every other weekend visitation, which he was exercising. Right after the Father had exercised his visitation, on December 6, 2023, the Mother informed him that she had taken the child to the United States. The Father commenced a lawsuit to seek the child’s return under the Abduction Convention on February 24, 2025.
In determining whether the Father had a right of custody under the prevailing Mexican custody order, the court examined two relevant provisions. The first provision required both parents give notice and ability to communicate with the child when traveling with the child out of Mexico. The second provision prohibits both parents from retaining or hiding the child from the other. Petitioner argues that these provisions qualify as a ne exeat right, which, under Abbott v. Abbott grants the Father a “right of custody.” The court noted that the order “does not prohibit traveling with [the child], or condition travel on the consent of both parents.” “Since neither relevant provision of the custody order addresses the right to approve or veto travel between countries, but focuses elsewhere, the order does not appear to grant petitioner ne exeat rights.” The court ultimately decided the case on a different issue, however.
Respondent argued returning the child to Mexico would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Separately, she argued the child is now settled in the USA. The court, in a brief paragraph, simply said that nothing presented makes out clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm. The court, however, did believe, the Respondent adequately argued that the child is now settled. The court, finding the Father filed more than 1 year from the child’s removal, examined the Lozano non-exhaustive factors. The court concluded, after reviewing the evidence, the child was settled. It therefore denied the Father’s petition to return the child to Mexico.
