AFFAIRE

Télécharger le texte complet EN

Nom de l'affaire

Pina v. Chavez No. 25 CV 10337

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/US 1748

Juridiction

Pays

États-Unis d'Amérique

Degré

Première instance

États concernés

État requérant

Mexique

État requis

États-Unis d'Amérique

Décision

Date

6 March 2026

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b)

Décision

Retour refusé

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

13(1)(b)

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

13(1)(b)

Autres dispositions

-

Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

Publiée dans

-

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis 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

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé 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.