Avendano v. Balza, 985 F.3d 8

Avendano (mother) filed an ICARA/Hague petition seeking return of her son G (born and habitually resident in Venezuela) after Balza (father, U.S. and Venezuelan citizen) retained G in Massachusetts beyond a Venezuelan court-ordered visit.
The parties agreed Venezuela was G's habitual residence and that Balza wrongfully retained G; Balza had obtained U.S. citizenship for G* and did not return him when visitation ended.
The district court held evidentiary hearings, interviewed G*, heard expert and lay witnesses (including a Guardian ad Litem), and made credibility findings.
The district court found by a preponderance that G*, then about 11, was sufficiently mature and consistently objected to returning to Venezuela, and that his views were not the product of undue influence by Balza.
The district court therefore invoked the Hague Convention’s Article 13 mature-child exception and denied Avendano’s petition for return; it also noted but did not need to decide a grave-risk claim.
The First Circuit affirmed, applying clear-error review to the factual findings (age/maturity and undue influence) and de novo review to legal interpretation of the Convention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G* was of sufficient age and maturity for his objection to be considered under the Hague Convention (Article 13)	Avendano: G* was not sufficiently mature; court should assess maturity as of the time of wrongful retention	Balza: G* (nearly 12) is currently mature enough; maturity is assessed at time of proceedings	Court: Affirmed district court — maturity is assessed based on current circumstances; no clear error in finding G* mature enough to have his views considered
Whether Balza unduly influenced or "brainwashed" G, vitiating weight of G's objection	Avendano: Evidence (testimony, alleged conversations, circumstances) shows undue influence and should preclude crediting G*'s objection	Balza: No undue influence; court's interview and evidence show G*'s views are independent and consistent	Court: Affirmed district court — it considered all evidence, found no undue influence, and did not clearly err

Díaz-Alarcón v. Flández-Marcel, 944 F.3d 303 (1st Cir.) (discussing Hague Convention’s purpose and standards of review)
Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir.) (presumption favoring return to habitual residence)
Darín v. Olivero-Huffman, 746 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (Hague Convention aims to deter forum-shopping by abducting parent)
Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir.) (exceptions to return construed narrowly)
Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir.) (Hague Convention governs only return, not custody merits)
Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (use of travaux préparatoires and interpretive guidance for the Convention)
United States v. Young, 105 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (deference to district court factfinding)