Case Update (30 Sept 2026): Toscan Gomez v. Lopez Ramirez; Third Circuit affirms denial of return to Guatemala, finding the eight-year-old child well settled in Pennsylvania

The parents are Guatemalan nationals whose son was born in Guatemala in 2017. After the parents separated, they entered into a Guatemalan court-approved custody agreement. In July 2021, without telling the Father, the Mother left Guatemala with the child. The Father filed missing persons reports but had no contact with either of them until December 2023, when he happened to encounter them at a church in Pennsylvania. He filed a custody case in Pennsylvania state court that month, and then filed a Hague Abduction Convention petition in federal court in May 2024, nearly three years after the removal. The District Court found a wrongful removal from Guatemala, but denied return because the petition was filed more than one year after the removal and the child was now “well” settled. The Father appealed.

In a nonprecedential opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed. It noted the circuit split on whether a district court's well-settled determination is reviewed de novo or for clear error (the same split Justice Sotomayor flagged earlier this year when the Supreme Court denied cert in Castro v. Brito Guevara), but declined to resolve it, concluding the result was the same under either standard. Applying the Monzon factors, the court found the child, now eight, was old enough to form attachments to a home where he had spent over half his life; lived in a stable household with his Mother and U.S.-born younger brother, with all three moves in the Allentown area; and had attended preschool and elementary school continuously, where he receives special education services under an IEP. The court could draw no firm conclusion about immigration status (the District Court found the Mother's asylum testimony "evasive"), but held that factor is not dispositive. It also found nothing indicating the Mother's concealment had hindered the child's settlement. Finally, the court rejected the Father's arguments that the District Court improperly engaged in a best-interests analysis (it was appropriately considering whether to exercise its discretion to order return despite the child being settled) and that it strayed into Article 13 grave risk territory (the child's educational and therapeutic services were considered only as evidence of his connection to his new community).