Case Update (4 Dec 2024): de la Cruz v. Garcia; 10-year-old expressed custodial preference, not particularized objection to returning to Mexico
A Father appealed the trial court’s denial of his request to have his child returned to Mexico under the Hague Abduction Convention. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court correctly denied the Father’s request based on the parties’ child being mature, having a particularized objection, and not being unduly influenced. At trial, the judge interviewed the child in camera. The child articulated that she was “happy” living with her parents in Mexico, and described her parents as “happy” and funny and that she loved them. The child admitted to having seen her Mother cry and that her Mother told her that the Father wanted the child to return to Mexico. When the trial judge asked the child where she would like to live, the child said, “I would like to live with my mom.” The child’s reasons related to her friends, her high school, and an upcoming class trip to Disneyland. The child wanted to see her Father “on vacation time” and articulated, multiple times, that she did not want to be separated from her Mother. The Mother admitted that she told the child that she feared that the child “would be taken back to Mexico and no longer be with me.” The trial court concluded the child was mature and had objected to returning. The Father appealed.
The Florida Court of Appeals noted that this exception only applies when a child is sufficiently mature, has a particularized objection, and the objection is not the product of undue influence. The court found that none of the three prongs were met at the trial level. The child’s worldview was couched through three things: friends, attending highschool, and a school fieldtrip. “Such generic and near-sighted responses demonstrate [the] minor child’s inability to maturely comprehend or appreciate the long-term impact of her decisions.” The child provided no significant testimony as to her life in Mexico or how it may differ from her life in the USA. The child’s only fear related to not wanting to be separated from her Mother, which actually may not come to pass, because the Mother is free to return with her to Mexico. The child’s response “fails to consider how her relationship with Father may change if she remains in the United States.” Finally, she has been in the exclusive custody of her Mother for over a year. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the child was not sufficiently mature. Likewise, the child had no particularized objection to returning to Mexico - she only provided a custodial preference in her conversation with the judge. Finally, the court concluded that the Mother had unduly influenced the child.
