Case Update (6 March 2026): Pina v. Chavez; Court concludes two children were abused and therefore their return to Mexico would be inappropriate

The parties are parents to two children. The Respondent Mother wrongfully removed the parties’ children from Mexico and brought them to Illinois. The Petitioner Father sought their return using the Hague Abduction Convention. The parties stipulated to the Father’s prima facie case. The only legal argument before the court was whether the Mother’s allegations of physical and psychological abuse would expose the children to a grave risk of harm if returned to Mexico. The Mother testified to abuse she suffered, and, to a lesser degree, that the children suffered. The Father testified that the parties did argue, and even corroborated some of a disagreement they had in 2024. He also testified to some physical discipline of the children, such as spanking. In this particular case, the court ordered the children be appointed their own lawyer - a guardian ad litem - and the parties stipulated to the selection of that GAL and the role that the GAL would undertake. Specifically, the parties agreed that the GAL’s appointment was for a limited purpose so she could “assess Minor Child A regarding (a) Respondent’s affirmative defense of grave risk of harm, and (b) Minor Child' A’s credibility, and to offer opinions regarding the same.” Ultimately, the GAL testified that she credited the child’s statements to her. The Minor Child told the GAL that the Petitioner hit them and called them names when he was drinking beer or when he got angry. The child told the GAL about the fights between their parents, and the names the Father apparently called the Mother. The GAL noted that she sensed that the child’s bigger concern - rather than his exposure to violence - was the Mother’s exposure to violence. The child did note loving and missing his Father, but that he “would not want his father to visit him in Aurora because he is afraid his father will take him away and hit him again.”

The GAL also addressed issues related to the child’s credibility, and whether there was any influence. She said that the child focused on her questions, answered them promptly and conversationally, maintained attention, had strong eye contact, and bore a serious and grave expression. He had impressive attention span and detailed descriptions and his language was age appropriate. She felt he was sincere, and had a strong memory, where his accounts of life in Mexico were consistent over the two meetings they had. The child was only recently 9 years old, but she saw no indication of “implanted memories” when the child spoke of prior events. She stated, in her report, that nothing in the child’s “presentation suggested coaching.” Further, nothing suggested alienation. She said that nothing indicated the child was forced or manipulated in his sharing of information.

As a note, this GAL had a specific role, almost akin to an expert witness or evaluator. While it is unclear if this is a traditional role undertaken by a GAL in the state of Illinois, in many states, a lawyer representing a child is prohibited from testifying or providing an opinion of this nature. A footnote did explain that neither party asked that the GAL’s work be broadened from its defined scope, so that the work could proceed quickly. The court also noted in the same footnote that Respondent wished for the court to take testimony of the oldest child at trial, but the court expressed concern in this - it is not trained to speak with children, it does not speak Spanish, etc. This was the catalyst for the GAL appointment.

The court concluded that the children were physically and psychologically abused and said abuse is “regular and significant, not isolated or limited” and that nothing in the petitioner’s testimony indicated that the behavior will change if the children were returned to Mexico. Finally, the Petitioner did suggest undertakings - a no contact order and some form of supervised visits. The court, however stated, “petitioner’s vague suggestions of conditions lack sufficient detail to assure the Court that they would be adequate to curtail the grave risk of harm to the children, even if they would be adhered to and enforceable.”