Case Update (17 March 2025): Gomez v. Gonzalez; Child was habitually resident in Mexico despite Mother’s assertion that she was coerced into remaining there

The parties are the parents of one child, born in Cuba in 2017. The child is a dual Mexican-Cuban citizen, and is a Legal Permanent Resident of the USA. The child lived with Respondent in Cuba until March 23, 2020. The Petitioner Father would travel between Mexico and Cuba and live with the child and Respondent when in Cuba. On March 23, 2020, the child and Respondent traveled to Mexico City. Despite having roundtrip airfare, immediately after they arrived, commercial flights leaving Mexico were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From March 2020 until April 2023, the child resided with both her parents in Mexico City. She attended school in Mexico City. In 2021, Respondent began working outside the house, in Mexico City. Flights resumed in late 2021/early 2022. The child was registered for school for 2023/2024, and the parties separated in April 2023, with Respondent moving out of the house with the child. She then began a relationship with the man who is now her fiance’. After separating from Petitioner, the child continued having visits with the Petitioner up to 3 times each month, with the last in-person visit in July 2023, when the child stayed with him for 3 days. In July 2023, the Respondent ceased communication with Petitioner, and then moved to the USA with the child in August 2023. She first lived in New Mexico, and then moved to Washington State in November 2023. The Petitioner filed paperwork with the Mexican authorities, and continued to seek out the child’s whereabouts in the USA. He filed his petition for the Child’s return in Washington State on August 6, 2024.

Respondent Mother argued that Mexico was not the child’s habitual residence at the time she traveled to the USA because she never intended to stay in Mexico - did not bring adequate clothing or supplies, and always intended to return to Cuba. She remained due to pandemic restrictions, and had a roundtrip airline ticket. She further argued she was coerced into staying in Mexico by the Father. The court disagreed. The child had a meaningful and non-transitory life in Mexico. From the beginning of 2022, when pandemic restrictions were lifted, the Respondent “failed to establish… she only remained in Mexico due to Petitioner’s coercion.” “To the contrary, Respondent testified that she would have stayed in Mexico had she met her fiance before she started the paperwork to move to the United States.” The court further clarified that this case is not like the case of Nisbet v. Bridger, where the court found the children had no habitual residence at the time they left Scotland at ages 4 and 2.

The court further concluded that returning the child would not expose the child to a grave risk of harm. The court noted that the Respondent’s “allegations of sexual assault are credible and disturbing” but that the parties appeared to co-parent the child with some level of cooperation, had discussed her schooling and health, and Petitioner even offered to help Respondent locate a new apartment after her move out. The fact that Respondent noted that she would have stayed in Mexico had she met her fiance earlier, “indicates that Respondent did not live in fear in Mexico or move to the United States to flee danger to herself or [the child].”