107 F. Supp. 3d 1226
M.D. Ala.2015Background
- Martinez González seeks the return of her two Mexican-born children from Alabama to Mexico under the Hague Convention and ICARA.
- Preston, Martinez’s ex-husband, allegedly abducted the children from Ciudad Juárez to his home in Lanett, Alabama, in April 2014.
- Preston drafted English-language documents he claimed were consent to terminate custody and to permit travel, which Martinez signed, allegedly without understanding.
- Martinez argues the documents were fraudulent; she maintained patria potestas and joint custody under Chihuahua law, and Mexican family court later granted her provisional sole guardianship.
- The court held a hearing via live video; evidence showed Martinez continued to care for the children and sought their return, while Preston defended the signatures as voluntary.
- The district court found the children were habitually resident in Chihuahua, Mexico, and that Preston’s removal breached Martinez’s rights of custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the removal violated rights of custody | Martinez contends she retained custody rights under Chihuahua law despite signing the forms. | Preston argues the forms terminated/limited custody rights and permitted relocation. | Yes; removal breached Martinez's rights of custody. |
| Whether there was a true agreement to modify custody | Martinez asserts signing was fraudulent and not understanding English; rights remained intact. | Preston claims Martinez willingly relinquished rights via the forms. | Fraud invalidated any agreement; rights remained intact. |
| Settlement defense applicability (one-year rule) | Petition filed within one year of removal; settlement defense not applicable. | Argues the one-year period may have elapsed and settled status could bar return. | Less than one year elapsed; defense not available. |
| Grave risk of harm defense | Returning would not place child in intolerable situation; no grave risk shown. | Argues potential harm from Ciudad Juárez conditions. | No clear and convincing evidence of grave harm; defense not proven. |
| Consent or acquiescence defense | Martinez did not consent or acquiesce in removal. | Preston relies on alleged consent or acquiescence in signing and removal. | Defense not proven; no acquiescence in removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (return remedy central to Hague Convention)
- Baran v. Beaty, 526 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (return is preferred; exceptions construed narrowly)
- Pesin v. Osorio Rodriguez, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (habitual residence governs custody rights under local law)
- Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000) (habitual residence and custody rights; Mexican choice-of-law context)
- Saldivar v. Rodela, 879 F. Supp. 2d 610 (W.D. Tex. 2012) ( Mexican doctrine of patria potestas; custody rights under Hague)
- Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) (flexible interpretation of custody rights under Hague)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (grave risk and best interests under Hague analysis)
- Hanley v. Roy, 485 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (actual exercise of custody rights includes caregiving and support)
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014) (overruled equitable tolling for one-year period under Hague)