Buscador de jurisprudencia

The parents had two children, age 10 and 7 respectively at the time of the hearing. They married in 2017 and were living in Venezuela. In 2019 the family moved to Italy. For around two years they moved back and forth between Italy and Venezuela. During this time, the children received Italian citizenship and passports. In 2021 the family moved back to Venezuela and the parents began living separately. In 2022 the mother and children moved to Spain where the mother applied for and received temporary political asylum. The father moved to and applied for asylum in the United States.

Because of their respective asylum applications, the parents felt they could not travel. They worked out an arrangement under which the children would visit the father for brief trips in the United States. On one of these trips, the children left Spain in May 2025 with round-trip tickets to return on 22 August 2025. On the day of the return flight, the father informed the mother that the Children would not be returning to Spain.

In early September 2025 the mother filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the children. 

The father argued that the children would be at grave risk of harm if they were to do return to Spain and that the elder child objected to returning.

Return ordered. The father's allegations were not so severe as to constitute a grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) and the elder child was not sufficiently mature to take her objections into account. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The father's allegations focused on the mother’s discipline style, her sexual promiscuity and the dangers of leaving the children unsupervised. 

The Court held that, while some of the parenting issues highlighted by the father raised legitimate concern over what is in the best interest of the children, none were so severe as to constitute a grave risk of harm within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

The father also argued that the elder of the two children objected to returning to Spain. After hearing evidence from the mother, her partner, the children’s psychologist, the father and the elder of the two children, the Court found that the child was not sufficiently mature to take her views into account. The Court said that, though the child had been through a lot in her 10 years, she was not particularly mature for her age. Her objections to return were based mainly on the treatment she received from her mother which the Court had already analysed and found not to constitute a grave risk within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b). The Court also noted the possibility that the child had been unduly influenced by the father.