Case Update (8 July 2026): Mudge v. Gamble; Child ordered returned to Mexico
The parties are parents to one child, age 4. The child was born in Florida to a US-Australian Father and a US Mother. The parties had resided in Australia, but purchased a house in Florida one month prior to the child’s birth. In 2022 and 2023, the family explored a move to Puerto Aventuras, Mexico, even living there for a one-month trial run in June 2023. They moved on September 11, 2023. They purchased a property, and sold their Florida residence. The parties secured temporary residency permits, enrolled the child in daycare and beach camp, and hired a nanny. The Father and child’s residency permits are for 3 years, to expire in 2027. The Mother’s residency permit was for 1 year, and has expired. Mother apparently operated her interior design business from Mexico, but she testified that she is not legally authorized to work in Mexico. Her parents purchased a condo and spent several months a year in Mexico. The parties dispute the duration of their relocation to Mexico, although Mother admitted that Mexico was intended to be a 3-to-5 year arrangement, and the parties admit selling their only U.S. residence. In January 2025, Mother entered into a yearlong lease for a studio apartment in NY, which the Father believed was to facilitate her work travel. A few months later, the parties separated. In April 2025, Mother entered into a yearlong lease for a property near their home in Mexico, and where she moved with the child in May. The parties’ marital home in Mexico is on the market for sale. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement of their child’s custody, sharing a 50/50 schedule, and staying in Mexico “until there is a decision made to move back to the United States”, but in May 2025, they lawyered up in NY, with an agreement, according to the Mother, to divorce in NY. In September 2025, Mother, however, filed for divorce in Mexico. A month later, she was granted provisional care of the child by the Mexican court, but was not granted custody. The court essentially maintained the status quo, and did not give the Mother permission to relocate the child out of Mexico. There are ongoing custody proceedings in Mexico, and, in January 2026, Mother also filed for custody in NY.
In late September 2025, Mother and child flew to NY, as they had on several previous occasions, and by the end of that month, Mother had enrolled the child in a school and entered into a yearlong lease for a 2BR apartment, without informing the Father. During this travel to NY, Father was undergoing hip surgery. She alerted the Father of the trip to NY by text on September 26th, as they were flying to NY, and he objected. In the days thereafter, Mother advised the parties’ housekeeper in Mexico she was staying in NY longer, because Father was not able to care for the child due to his surgery, she placed the child in school in NY, and deferred the Father’s requests to immediately return the child. In early to mid-October, she dismissed a note from a doctor in Mexico that cleared Father for normal activities (i.e., to care for a 4-year-old), and cited an illness that the child had developed as a reason he was unable to fly. On October 28, 2025, Mother, for the first time, informed Father that she filed for divorce in Mexico and had secured “temporary care and custody” of the child. The court noted that the child has ongoing gastrointestinal issues, sinus infections, and early signs of dyslexia (although apparently too young to be tested). Mother raised concerns about the Father’s care, at trial, arguing some situations where the child was asked to use a knife to cut food, or collect broken glass on the street.
The court rejected Mother’s argument that the parties’ move to Mexico was conditioned on certain occurrences that, if not occurring, would warrant a prompt return to the U.S. In that no final order related to the child has been granted by any court, and that Mother has only provisional care of the child in Mexico, the court found that Father’s rights of custody were in tact. The court found no grave risk in returning the child to Mexico. His health issues were not unique nor required ongoing treatment in NY. The Father’s behavior, if “neglect”, did not rise to the requisite level of risk. Further, the criminal investigation in Mexico against the Mother has apparently been dismissed, and therefore, there was no credible risk of her being arrested if she accompanied the child back to Mexico.
The petition is granted, and the child ordered returned to Mexico.
