Case Update (29 May 2026): Loblein v. De Ens; grave risk of harm made out based on domestic violence
The parties are parents to two children. They have a long history of violent behavior, and during trial, both shared their own narrative of a variety of incidents that occurred between them, with each’s story differing in material respects. There were differing narratives as to disciplining the children, and the use of hitting. In November 2024, the Mother approached the Father and asked to take the children to the USA for a trip to visit her mother who had been diagnosed with cancer. At some point after December 25, 2024, the Mother informed the Father that she and the children would not return to Paraguay. The Father pursued a request to return the children to Paraguay using the Hague Abduction Convention.
During trial, the court interviewed the daughter, who shared that the Father hit her and it sometimes left bruises or cuts and she bled more than once as a result. The child also apparently shared that the Father would hit the Mother a lot, but that she never saw the Mother hit the Father. She stated that she was afraid of her Father and his parents, and she did not want to return to Paraguay. An expert also testified, relying on a dated report of 17 cases of sexual crimes against minors in Paraguay and two newspaper articles, to conclude that the Paraguayan legal system is ineffective to hold perpetrators accountable. The court, while finding this expert based their opinion on limited information, it was consistent with the U.S. Department of State’s 2023 Human Rights Report for Paraguay. Having stipulated to the Father’s prima facie case, the only issue at trial was whether returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm, and the Father’s argument that the Paraguayan legal system could protect the children.
The court found a grave risk of harm, and then turned to the Petitioner Father’s assertion that the Paraguayan legal system could sufficiently protect the children. The court ultimately cited to Saada v. Golan, the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case on ameliorative measures. Citing to Golan, the Court concluded that having found a grave risk in this case, “the Court may, in the exercise of its discretion under the Convention, consider whether any ameliorative measures are sufficient to mitigate the risk of grave danger so as to justify ordering return of the children, notwithstanding the finding of grave risk.” The court found that Golan did not answer which party bears the burden of proving ameliorative measures. The court then stated, “Because it is the Petitioner who contends that the authorities in the country of habitual residence can ameliorate the grave risk of harm, it is the Petitioner’s burden to make that showing.” It then concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy his burden of proof that the ameliorative measures - the efficacy of the Paraguayan legal system - would be sufficient to ameliorate the grave risk and allow for the safe return of the children.
The request to return the children was denied.
