Case Update (31 July 2025): Ochoa v. Perez; Parents seek return of children transported by coyote into USA from Mexico

The Petitioners in this case are the parents of two children, ages 4 and 11. The Respondents are maternal relatives of the two children who reside in New York. The children at issue were born in Mexico and had spent their entire lives in Mexico. At some point, the Petitioners decided, as a family, to move to New York. They devised a strategy whereby the Petitioner Father and two children would cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and then the Petitioner Mother would immediately attempt to do so herself. Their agreement was apparently that the children would, after crossing the border with their Father, return to Mexico to live with their Mother until the entire family could be together in the USA as a unit. When the Father and children attempted to cross the border, the Father was detained, and held in a detention facility for two months. In the meantime, the children were taken from Texas to D.C. by coyotes. The Respondents drove to D.C. from New York and picked up the children. The Father has since returned to Mexico, and the Petitioners requested that the children also be returned, but purportedly the Respondents have refused. That prompted the Petitioner Parents to file a request to return both children to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. The district court interviewed both children in camera on July 25, 2025.

The Court concluded that Mexico was both children’s habitual residence. Both parents agreed that any relocation to the United States was premised on the entire family moving together, otherwise the family would return to Mexico. Both parents had rights of custody under Mexican law, and they were exercising those rights. When they relinquished custody of their children to coyotes, they were not intending to abandon their children. The court noted that “giving over physical custody of [the children] to perfect strangers might implicate” that they were negligent, but that is irrelevant as to whether they were exercising their custody rights.

The court, having interviewed the children, concluded that the older child, almost 12-years-old, was thoughtful, intelligent, poised and direct. She could distinguish between right and wrong and truth from fiction. She was remarkably bright, and her views were “characterized by ‘constancy and coherence…”. Her objections to returning to Mexico, where the child said she had experienced physical and emotional abuse by Petitioners, was bolstered by more than a year of her medical records, coming from therapy sessions. There was no credible evidence that the child’s narrative was contaminated by the Respondents. The court further found that both children were settled in the United States. In fact, the court noted that they do not even recognize the Petitioners as their parents and they have some consequential connections to their New York community, including church, school, and friends. Finally, the court also concluded that the older child would be exposed to a grave risk of harm, in the form of physical, psychological, and emotional abuse, if returned to Mexico. The child was coherent in her descriptions of what she says happened before moving to the United States and what she fears will happen if she returns. An expert noted that the child has a credible history of trauma. Finally, the court noted that the Petitioner Parents did not offer any ameliorative measures at the hearing that would otherwise allow the court to consider a return in these circumstances. While the court did find that the youngest child was settled in New York, the court also found that a grave risk of psychological harm would exist to the younger sibling if separated from her older sibling.

The court elected to, based on a motion filed by the Respondents, dismiss the Petition seeking the children’s return.