Case Update (31 July 2025): Llorente & Horcajo v. El Benaye; children would be exposed to a grave risk upon return to Spain and are settled in Florida

The Petitioners are the Father of two children (8 and 9 year old daughters), and his Mother (who voluntarily withdrew her claim before the trial started). The Respondent is the Mother of the same two children, who is residing in Florida with her second husband and her other children, not at issue here. The Petitioners seek the two at-issue children’s return to Spain using the Hague Abduction Convention.

The parties were divorced in Spain on July 18, 2018. In February 2019, the parties entered into a Joint Custody Agreement, “which [Respondent] testified she agreed to under duress.” The Respondent accused the Petitioner Father of abusive behavior and of criminal activity, resulting in his incarceration, and threats made by his “criminal associates” towards her. The court also took evidence that the children are doing well, speak fluent English, and are happy in Florida. The children apparently told the judge that they did not want to return to Spain and thought of Florida as their home. They referred to their step-father as “papa.”

Respondent argued that the removal of the children from Spain was not wrongful - that while the Petitioner Father was incarcerated, he had no custodial rights, and any rights of custody would only resume once he was released. She also argued that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm due to “domestic abuse[]”, “psychological[] manipulat[ion]”, and the tracking of her movements and death threats. She also argued that the children are “well settled” in Florida, and in the process of becoming American citizens (her husband is American).

The court disagreed with Respondent and concluded that the Petitioner Father had a right of custody. Even though there was a temporary sole custody order while the Father was incarcerated, the suspension of his rights were only temporary, and were set to “automatically and immediately” reinstate upon his release. He maintained custody rights, and he was actually exercising those rights - he made repeated attempts to maintain contact with the children, before, throughout, and after his incarceration. The court, however, agreed with Respondent that the children would be placed in an intolerable situation if returned to Spain, and were present when Respondent Father became enraged, making it “highly probable that the girls could become targets of violence”. The court also found there was a grave risk that the children would be targets and used as leverage by anyone seeking revenge against their Father. The court further concluded that the children were settled in Florida. [Note - the court did not include dates that would indicate the Father failed to file his petition within one year of the wrongful removal, but the court left that implied].

The Father’s petition to return the children to Spain was denied.