Case Update (2 April 2025): Parra v. Camargo; general allegations of drugs and sexual abuse by institutions in Chile was insufficient to prove an intolerable situation

The parties are parents to one child. They were residing as a family in Chile, although both parents were originally from Venezuela. The parties agreed that Respondent Mother would bring the child to the United States to visit relatives from May 2 - 28, 2023. Subsequent text messages confirmed an agreement to extend that visit for 2 more months. However, on July 6, 2023, the Respondent advised the Petitioner Father that she did not intend to return to Chile.

While in Chile, the child struggled, and had to often go to work with Respondent, where she had no social interaction with other children. After relocating to Texas, the child “has made significant improvements” and attends an elementary school. Her maternal grandmother and mother each share in the childcare. Respondent Mother “has begun the process of requesting asylum for herself and [the Child]. She testified that the two are not able to travel outside of the United States because they will not be permitted to return.”

The district court concluded that Chile was the child’s habitual residence at the time of the child’s retention in the United States (July 6, 2023), and even though the parties had discussed “making a life together someplace outside of Chile”, those discussions did not bear out any agreement before July 6, 2023.

In arguing that the child would be exposed to an intolerable situation upon the child’s return to Chile, the Mother argued that the child attended Catholic daycare in Chile, and that sexual abuse of children in Chile in daycare is well documented. She argued that the child would be in these institutions often because of Petitioner’s rotating work schedule. She also argued that drug use is prevalent among school-aged children and that the child would have no family other than her father in Chile to support her. The district court concluded that the Mother’s “general allegations” were not sufficient to establish an article 13(b) exception to returning the child by a clear and convincing evidence burden.

Therefore, the district court ordered the child returned to Chile.