Case Update (29 April 2026): Louis v. Charles; domestic violence amounted to grave risk if child were returned to Chile

The parties are parents to one child, SLC. The parties were living in Chile with the child, in a one room space, with the Father’s other family members. Throughout their relationship, the Mother alleged that the Father committed violent acts towards her, in the presence of the child, and that when she sought assistance from authorities in Chile, he violated those orders and escalated his violence to death threats. As the Mother moved farther from the Father within Chile, the courts in Chile ultimately entered an order precluding the Mother from exiting Chile. On December 23, 2023, the Mother and child left Chile, in violation of the travel prohibition in place. They traveled to Mexico. In her absence, the courts in Chile removed a prior protective measures order against the Father, and determined he did not pose a risk to SLC. On July 10, 2024, the Mother and child entered the USA through Texas, and ultimately settled in Massachusetts in August 2024. They then found themselves in a new MA apartment in February 2025, sharing space with friends and the child’s godparents. The Mother applied for asylum for herself and the child, and a hearing is scheduled for Summer 2026. On March 24, 2025, the Father filed his petition for request to return the minor child to Chile in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The District Court concluded, after a several day trial in January 2026, that the child need not be returned, and denied the Father’s petition.

At trial, there were several key disagreements. The parties disagreed as to whether the Father had a right of custody under Chilean law, but the lack of a final custody order, and the travel prohibitions in place, caused the District Court to concluded that he did. The parties further disagreed as to whether the Father was actually exercising his rights of custody at the time of the child’s removal from Chile, in part because there was a temporary protective order against the Father in Chile. The District Court ultimately didn’t resolve this issue, finding insufficient information to make an assessment as to how the temporary order impacted the exercise of custody rights, and concluding that the Respondent Mother made out two separate exceptions against the child’s return: the return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm and the child was now settled in Massachusetts.

The Mother, at trial, presented two separate experts on the impact and presumptive escalation of violence against her and the child if the child were returned. The Court concluded that she demonstrated that a risk existed by clear & convincing evidence that “she was physically abused by [Father], while holding or at least in the presence of SLC, and that [Father] failed to comply with measures put in place by the Chilean courts to protect her and the child.” Based on this, and the expert testimony, “the likelihood of retribution or escalation upon return and the risk factors for lethality, the court concludes that return to Chile would pose a grave risk of both psychological and physical harm to SLC.” Separately, finding that the Father filed his petition for the child’s return 15 months after the child exited Chile, and finding that the child’s “living environment is stable, consistent, and supported” by the Mother and her network, the Court find the child now settled in the United States.