Case Update (25 April 2024): Guzman v. Brazon; allegations of domestic violence did not rise to the level of a grave risk
The parties are the parents to one minor child, born in June 2021 in Lima, Peru. Respondent fled her home country of Venezuela in Summer 2018, moving to Peru to avoid political persecution and threats of harm. The parties began dating and moved in together in December 2019. After the child’s birth, the family resided together as a unit in Petitioner’s home in Lima. On July 13, 2023, the parties traveled with their child to North Carolina to celebrate a family birthday, and were expecting to return on August 1, 2023, with airline tickets purchased. Shortly before that date, Respondent advised Petitioner that she and the child would not return to Peru.
Respondent argued, at trial, that the Petitioner would yell at her, and hyper-focus on her and the child’s weight. She stated that his actions became physical after 2022. She stated that he would spontaneously pull her hair, accuse her of being unfaithful, and, at some point “began forcing Respondent to watch a video of a man killing his former partner with a knife after finding her having sexual relations with another man.” She stated that, after 2023, his aggression grew more intense. She testified that “hair pulling became slaps to the face and forcible sex.” She stated that the child slept in their bedroom, and was “always present for the physical aggressions.” There was an incident during their trip to North Carolina in July 2023, where Respondent alleged that Petitioner pushed her while she was holding their child, and she suffered a bruise.
The court noted, in its order, that while in North Carolina, “Respondent did not seek a domestic violence restraining order against Petitioner in the United States, consult with the police, or otherwise seek criminal charges.” The court also stated that “it does not appear that Respondent informed anyone, including her brother or sister-in-law, of the alleged incident until after Petitioner had left the brother’s residence.” The court also noted that “Respondent asked Petitioner to extend his stay in the United States to ‘talk further about [the parties’] situation.’” Petitioner denied any of the abuse, and said that the first time he had heard of the alleged abuse was after he refused, in September 2023, to sign paperwork that would allow Respondent to keep the child in the USA.
Ultimately the court, while noting that it did not take lightly Respondent’s alleged distress, the “Court finds that deficiencies in Respondent’s testimony undermine her credibility with respect to the claimed severity of risk of harm to [the child] if she is returned to Peru.” “Respondent has presented little to no evidence demonstrating that [the child] would be exposed to direct abuse or other harm at the hands of Petitioner if returned to Peru.” Further, “Respondent has failed to present sufficient evidence of how the alleged abuse has affected or is likely to affect [the child].” “…[h]ere, the Court observes a sample of abuse allegations that appear to be limited to the context of Petitioner and Respondent’s dating relationship.” “The Court finds that the lack of corroborating evidence of Petitioner’s abuse, inconsistencies in Respondent’s testimony, the timing in which Respondent’s abuse allegations arose, Respondent’s apparent motivation that the parties’ custody rights be determined in the United States, and the fact that the parties have since ended their dating relationship undermine Respondent’s claim that that [sic] [the child] will be subjected to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm…” The Father’s petition to return the child to Peru is granted.
