Case Update (13 February 2024): Carmona v. Moreno; Child Ordered Returned to Mexico in a Robust Court Order
This is a Hague Abduction Convention case before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The case itself is a fairly straightforward application of the Convention, but, unlike a lot of recent trial court orders returning children under the Convention, this return order is very robust. It provides, among other things:
a concrete return date of “no later than March 1, 2024” [recent return orders routinely leave open the return date, and require the parents to meet and confer and select a date agreeable to both]
a requirement that the Respondent be solely responsible for the expenses
that “[t]he Mexican Consulate in Raleigh shall assist Respondent in arranging the Child’s return to Mexico” [note - the child had no passport, and had entered the U.S. illegally with her mother, and in some cases, the Taking Parent alleges that the child’s passport is lost]
a requirement that the Respondent Mother provide all documents and information to the Mexican Consulate within five days of the order to obtain passports for herself and the child, and to cooperate with the consulate
that the Mexican consulate shall issue passports for the Mother and Child within five days of receiving the documentation [note - it is unclear to what extent the court has the authority to mandate a foreign sovereign to do this]
a requirement that the Mexican consulate hold the passports, and not give the passports to the Mother; instead a representative of the Mexican consulate will travel with the child to Mexican and then deliver the passports to the Petitioner Father in Mexico
that the Mother and the Mexican Consulate needed to coordinate in travel arrangements, because of the mandate that the Mexican consular officer also travel
a ne exeat, prohibiting the child’s removal from the M.D. of NC until the child’s return to Mexico
a requirement that the mother shall make the child available to the court in NC as necessary
a clear statement that violation of the order is criminal contempt, and could result in a warrant to take custody of the child by the U.S. Marshal service
It is entirely unclear as to whether the court coordinated with the consulate before issuing this order, because the court unlikely has any authority to require the Mexican consulate’s cooperation in the return of the child. It does seem to flow, however, from other recent cases, including a recent case in the SDNY (Royal Borough of Kensington v. Bafna-Louis), where a longstanding return order has been frustrated on occasion, resulting in the court to amend its return orders several times to reflect processes to secure a passport for the child, and escorts for the minor child from New York to England.
