Case Update (23 Aug 2023): Vilchez v. Aranguren; lack of substantiation and lack of credibility were fatal to Respondent’s arguments in Hague Abduction matter
The parties agree that on or about July 25 or 26, 2021, the Respondent Father removed his minor daughter from Mexico and brought her illegally into the United States, where he now has a political asylum application pending. He now resides in Chicago with his new significant other and the child. Within weeks of the removal, the child’s Petitioner Mother filed a sequence of pleadings in the Mexican Family Court. Ultimately, the court granted a series of orders giving the Mother custody and ordering the Father to return the minor child to Mexico. On April 1, 2022, the Mother submitted her application to return the child pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. This lawsuit was filed on July 22, 2022, almost, but just shy of, one year from the removal of the daughter.
At trial, the primary arguments revolved around certain arguments by the Father that the court ultimately dismissed as not credible. He argued that the Mother had no right of custody because, in 2018 in Venezuela (where the family was residing at the time), he was granted full custody of the child. He never produced any court order, however, and at all times while in Mexico over the intervening years, the parties tended to share custody relatively equally between each other. The court concluded that the Father’s assertion that a Venezuelan custody order existed that divested the Mother of any custody rights was not credible given the lack of documentation and the behavior of the parties afterwards.
Separately, the Father argued that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of harm. He argued that the child would receive poor medical care, a poor education, that the child did not receive vaccinations according to the U.S. vaccine protocol, and that the child was held back by one year in school when she started school in the U.S. He further argued that the Mother’s partner put his hand underneath the child’s underwear. To substantiate the Father’s argument, he relied on proffered testimony from a child psychologist who reviewed the child’s U.S. medical report stating she was not up to date on her vaccines and her school report saying the child was being held back by one year. The documents were not entered into evidence. Moreover, the court found the child psychologist’s proffer to be irrelevant to a grave risk analysis because they pertained to a custody determination and a best interest analysis. He further had no substantiating evidence related to the alleged act by the Mother’s partner.
The minor child is ordered returned to Mexico.
A few comments:
the Mother filed her application with the Mexican Central Authority on April 1, 2022, and less than one month later the application had been processed, transmitted to the U.S. Central Authority, and the U.S. Central Authority had sent out a letter to the Father
the Mother filed her lawsuit on July 22, 2022, and the court actually held a trial on the petition on August 17, 2023 – more than one year after the lawsuit was filed
The trial itself took only four hours