Case Update (30 Oct 2024): Juarez de la Rosa v. Alonso; child’s mature objection caused court to deny his return to Mexico
The parties are the unmarried parents to a 15-year-old child. At some point in the child’s youth, the child’s Father relocated from Mexico to Texas. The child remained primarily resident with his Mother in Mexico. Then, in 2022, the child traveled to Texas for a visit with the Father. When the Father had not returned the child according to the parents’ agreement, the Mother traveled to Texas, leaving Mexico on January 21, 2023 and arriving in Texas at the Father’s house on January 22, 2023. When the Father then refused to turn over the child, the Mother sought assistance at the Mexican consulate in Dallas, and then returned to Mexico, where she filed a return application with the Mexican Central Authority on February 3, 2023, pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. On January 23, 2024, the Mother then filed her Verified Petition in the U.S. District Court for the return of the child. The court concluded she commenced the return proceeding more than one year from the date of the wrongful retention, but concluded that the Father did not meet his burden to show that the child was “well” settled in Texas. Stating that the term “settled” requires “nothing less than substantial evidence of the child’s significant connections to the new country” and that it is to be considered “in light of evidence … concerning the child’s contacts with and ties to his or her State of habitual residence”, the court concluded that the Father had not met his burden. The court also found that the Mother had not acquiesced to the child’s permanent relocation to Texas.
The child was appointed a guardian ad litem and interviewed in-camera. At the time of trial, the child was age 14, and the court concluded that the child had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to account for his views. The GAL found the child to be thoughtful, forthcoming, and conversational in his answers to her, and that he was polite, convivial, and enthusiastic. The child “communicated that he wanted to live in the United States because he liked school better in Texas and ‘is very interested in pursuing his education.’” The child also “communicated that he believed the laws and general security are better in the United States.” During his in-camera interview, the child communicated “that living in Mexico made him stressed, anxious, and scared.” He discussed his medical problems with the judge, and the treatments he was receiving in the USA. When the judge asked if “anyone pressured” the child to “say that he wanted to stay in Texas” the child responded “that his father stated that it was [the Child’s] decision and that his father wanted him to reside where [the Child] wanted to reside and was comfortable.” Finally, the court concluded that the child’s statements were an objection, not a preference. “Throughout the proceedings, [the Child] never waivered on his opinion or withdrew his objection to returning to Mexico.” There was no evidence of any undue influence.
