Case Update (9 July 2026): In re. Marriage Morales & Meixueiro; nullified Mexican order’s findings not basis to overturn return order
The parties have been litigating their case in the Colorado state courts for years. In 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a trial court erroneously dismissed a Father’s request to return the parties’ child from Colorado to Mexico, and reversed and remanded to make a decision on the petition. On remand, that trial court took evidence, and concluded that the child should be returned to Mexico. The Respondent Mother now appeals, and the Colorado Court of Appeals looks at this family’s situation again.
Mother’s first argument on appeal is that a subsequent order, issued by the Mexican courts on February 28, 2023, moots the Father’s petition. The Mexican order revoked a temporary custody order, granting the Father custody, and found that with the child having lived in the US for so long, an “abrupt change” “would be far from beneficial and might even be harmful” to the child. The court in Mexico ordered the Mother to propose a schedule where they would continue living in the US and the Father has regular visitation. The Colorado Court of Appeals, however, noted a June 15, 2023 order from a federal judge in Mexico that reasoned the February 28th order was incorrect. This later order found that “mother had not presented any evidence that the child was integrated into her new environment, and therefore, the reasoning and findings in the February 28 order were unsupported.” That order nullified the earlier order, and required further proceedings. The Mother failed to argue how a nullified order should dictate this court’s decision. Mother also argued that the Colorado courts should have deferred, as a matter of comity, to the February 28 order when considering the grave risk of harm defense and the defense of the child being settled under the Hague Abduction Convention. Again the Colorado Court of Appeals referred to the June order nullifying the February order, negating the Mother’s reliance on the earlier order. It also reminded the Mother that the legal proceedings were commenced within one year of the abduction, and therefore, she cannot argue the child was now settled, regardless of the Mexican court’s orders and findings. The Mexican court’s order’s findings of harm and/or best interests were speculative, at best, and clearly wouldn’t meet the threshold of a clear and convincing finding in a Hague Abduction Convention case.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order returning the child to Mexico.
