CASO

Descargar texto completo EN

Nombre del caso

Pina v. Chavez No. 25 CV 10337

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/US 1748

Tribunal

País

Estados Unidos de América

Instancia

Primera Instancia

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

México

Estado requerido

Estados Unidos de América

Fallo

Fecha

6 March 2026

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Restitución denegada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

13(1)(b)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(1)(b)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en

-

SINOPSIS

Sinopsis disponible en EN

Two children wrongfully removed at ages 8 and 9 – Nationals of Mexico – Father national of Mexico – Mother national of Mexico – Children lived in Mexico until September 2024 – Return refused – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b), the mother established clear and convincing evidence of abuse

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN

Facts

The parents met in 2015 and had two children, age 9 and 8 years old at the time of the hearing. The whole family were Mexican citizens and the children had lived solely in Mexico from the time of their births until they were taken by their mother to the USA in September 2024.

The father did not consent to the removal and filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child. 

The mother argued that the father had been abusive towards her and the children, and that Article 13(1)(b) applied.

Ruling

Return refused, Article 13(1)(b) applied.

Grounds

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

The mother argued that the father had been psychologically, physically and sexually abusive towards her and, on occasion, had been violent with the children.

The Court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem to interview the children and her report stated that the older child confirmed the mother’s story. The child expressed concern about returning to Mexico. 

The Court found that the mother had established clear and convincing evidence of abuse. 

Regarding protective measures, the Court held that the father’s vague suggestions lacked sufficient detail to assure the Court that they would be adequate to curtail the grave risk of harm to the children, even if they would be adhered to and enforceable.