Case Update (2 June 2023): Soterano v. Aponte; children are now settled in Miami, returning them to Venezuela would not resume "status quo"

The parties' 2 children, ages 8 and 6 at the time of the trial, were wrongfully removed from their habitual residence of Venezuela by their mother, who worked with an attorney to forge the legally required travel consent that was presented to the Venezuelan court that allowed their exit. The mother and children crossed into the United States, and the mother has an asylum petition pending. She has refused to return to Venezuela, regardless of the outcome, given her pending asylum petition and pending criminal kidnapping charges against her in Venezuela. While the mother argued several exceptions to the children's return, the court focused on one - that the children are now settled in Florida - in deciding to not return them.

The parties agreed to a joint expert evaluation of the two children to explore the various exceptions that the mother argued. The joint expert reached certain conclusions, such as "the Children are very happy and well-adjusted in Miami" and the children do not have "a secure attachment with their Faither [sic]" and "the Father is not 'emotionally attuned' to the Children." The expert further reached conclusions that "the Mother is emotionally bonded with the Children" and "[t]he Mother is aware of the Children's needs" and "[t]he Father's interactions with the Children were more 'parent-centric' than 'child-centric'".

Ultimately, because the Father had filed his lawsuit more than one year from their removal from Venezuela, and because the Mother would not be returning to Venezuela, the Court found the children now settled, and determined that "[g]ranting the Father's Petition would not restore the status quo for the Children, as it is intended by the Convention." In other words, if the Children were returned, they would be living with their Father, in a house they had never visited, with his Wife, who they had never met, and without any plan to reintegrate into their Venezuelan community. The court also interviewed the children, who expressed objections to returning, and while the court made some findings about their maturity, it did not reach a conclusion based on a mature child's objection exception. It also did not examine whether returning the children would expose them to a grave psychological risk. The court then further admonished the parents' "refusal or inability to reach a custody resolution" despite the Court having urged them to do so after its evidentiary hearing and stated that "the parents cannot put their Children's interests before their individual motivations."