Blanca Reyes Valenzuela v. Steve Michel
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23092
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Parents (Steve Michel and Blanca Reyes Valenzuela) lived near each other in Nogales (Mexico) and Nogales (Arizona); twin girls born 2008.
- From May 2009–fall 2010 the twins split time under a shuttle custody plan: Blanca in Mexico Mon–Wed; Steve in U.S. Thu–Sun; parties agreed to keep children in U.S. for schooling/medical benefits.
- Relationship deteriorated in Sept 2010; Blanca restricted Steve’s contact and Steve reported her to child protective agencies.
- On March 24, 2011 Steve took the twins to the U.S. and on March 27 informed Blanca he would not return them.
- Blanca filed a Hague Convention/ICARA petition two days later seeking return; district court found Steve credible, concluded the twins’ habitual residence was the United States, and denied return. District court findings affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Blanca's Argument | Steve's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the twins habitually resident in Mexico at time of retention? | Twins remained habitually resident in Mexico; retention by Steve wrongful under Art. 3. | Parents had shared intent to abandon Mexico and make U.S. the twins' habitual residence via shuttle plan. | Court: Habitual residence was the U.S.; not wrongful under the Convention. |
| Effect of shuttle custody on habitual residence (alternating/dual habitual residence) | Shuttle arrangement does not create U.S. habitual residence; Mexico remained primary. | Shuttle plan and settled intent produced U.S. habitual residence (or alternating residences with U.S. residency at retention). | Court: Shuttle custody can produce alternating habitual residence; facts here support U.S. habitual residence. |
| Standard of review for factual findings (credibility) | N/A (challenged findings) | District court’s credibility determinations should be upheld. | Court: Credibility findings supported by record; review for clear error and affirmed. |
| Applicability of Mozes framework (shared intent + change + time) | Mozes framework does not support abandonment of Mexico here. | Mozes factors satisfied: shared settled intent, actual geographical change, appreciable time. | Court: Mozes factors met; affirmed district court’s application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (framework for habitual residence focusing on parents' shared, settled intent)
- In re B. Del C.S.B, 559 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.) (habitual residence reviewed as mixed question; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.) (habitual residence treated as mixed law-fact question)
- Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.) (discussion of habitual residence concept)
- Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (Convention's focus on return to forum for custody proceedings, not merits)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir.) (importance of actual change in geography for habitual residence)
- Brooke v. Willis, 907 F. Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y.) (shuttle/50-50 time split considered in habitual residence analysis)
- Gonzalez-Caballero v. Mena, 251 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.) (clear error standard discussion)
- Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 930 F.2d 662 (9th Cir.) (deference to credibility determinations)
- United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.) (review of credibility determinations under clear error)