Case Update (4 May 2026): Juarez v. Velasquez; Child Ordered Returned to Mexico

The Petitioner here is the minor child’s great aunt. The Respondent is the child’s mother. A Mexican court order from August 16, 2023 granted the great aunt sole legal and physical custody of the child. The motivating factor “in the transfer of custody from [the child’s] parents to Petitioner was to enroll the child in school available only through Petitioner’s government job.” The child continued residing with his parents, 400 meters from Petitioner’s home in Mexico, although she testified to seeing him four to five times a week. The child’s parents continued to make all major decisions for him. During the child’s time in Mexico, the child’s Respondent Mother testified that she was concerned about her and the child’s safety on several occasions based on the child’s Father’s behavior (but not on the Petitioner’s behavior). In fact, one of the times when she was scared for her and the child’s safety, she stayed with the Petitioner for a week. The Petitioner testified that she had never seen the Father “hit, kick, or push the child.” She also noted that the “Respondent never mentioned any instances of abuse toward her or the child.” The court, in making credibility determinations, concluded that the Respondent “for the most part, provided only general allegations of abuse, without any specific detail” and “never reported any abuse to law enforcement, nor did members of her household witness any abuse, save her sister.”

On or about June 22, 2024, at about 3 AM, the Respondent left her home with the child. The child, upon arriving in Minnesota, was actually placed in licensed foster care that persisted for about a month to monitor the child. After a month, and supervised transition and home visits, the child was returned to Respondent’s care. The Petitioner Aunt filed her request to return the child on June 20, 2025 in the court. The Respondent testified that they were active in church, the child had extracurricular activities and friends, she had work authorization, and they had a pending application for “immigration protection.”

At trial, the Respondent challenged the validity of the Mexican custody order, but the court concluded that the Respondent had the agreement (which was incorporated into the Mexican custody order) she signed with sufficient time to review it and digest it, and that she never later challenged it in the Mexican courts. Further, the Respondent argued that the child would be exposed to a grave risk of harm if returned to Mexico due to Father’s abusive behavior, including, among other things, his street racing with the child in the car. The court, in finding the Respondent lacked credibility, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a grave risk of harm. “[T]he Court notes that Respondent has neither alleged, nor is there any evidence in the record at all, that Petitioner herself has abused or neglected [the child], either physically or psychologically.” The Respondent’s allegations against the child’s Father were “too unsubstantiated to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence” that the child would be subject to a grave risk of harm. It ultimately came down to a he-said-she-said type of case, and the Court noted that it had no photographic or documentary evidence to tip the scale. The Respondent also argued that the child was settled in Minnesota. However, the Court noted that the petition to return the child had been filed less than one year from June 22, 2024, and, even if the petition had not been timely filed, the Court concluded the child was not settled. The child’s life was marked by upheaval and uncertainty - foster care placement, a move away from where the child was placed in school, at least one change in schools, and no evidence to support any immigration protection would be forthcoming or shield the Respondent and child against unanticipated removal.

The child was ordered returned to Mexico City “no later than 14 days following the end of the 2025-2026 school year…”. On June 5, 2026, the court denied the Mother’s request to stay the order of return.