Maria Alejandra Reyes Ovalle v. Noe Manuel Perez, 681 F. App'x 777

Background

Reyes (Guatemalan) and Perez (U.S.) had a relationship; Reyes entered the U.S. on a tourist visa for short stays and kept most belongings and a business in Guatemala.
Their child E.L. was born in Florida in December 2015; the parties dispute whether they had a shared, settled intent to live in Florida.
After birth, Reyes returned to Guatemala with E.L. for periods of time; the child lived with Reyes and her family, attended church, saw a pediatrician, and was to be baptized there. Perez visited and sent money but ultimately drove off from a baptism-related errand in Guatemala with E.L., taking him to the U.S. in July 2016.
Reyes filed a Hague Convention petition seeking return of E.L.; after a four-day bench trial the district court ordered return to Guatemala.
On appeal, Perez challenged (1) the finding that E.L.’s habitual residence was Guatemala, (2) that Reyes had custodial rights under Guatemalan law, and (3) that the expedited process violated his due process rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes)	Defendant's Argument (Perez)	Held
Habitual residence of child at time of removal	E.L. had become habitually resident in Guatemala given his settlement with mother/family and parents lacked a settled mutual intent to reside in Florida	Parents shared intent to live in Florida; Florida therefore was habitual residence	Court affirmed Guatemala as habitual residence: no shared settled intent for Florida; child had stable ties in Guatemala and father’s self-help abduction weighed against giving him legal advantage
Whether Perez’s removal violated Reyes’s custodial rights under Guatemalan law	Reyes, an unwed mother, had custodial rights under Guatemala’s Civil Law Code	Perez argued affidavit on Guatemalan law for Reyes was unreliable and that registration rules preclude application of Civil Code	Court upheld that Civil Law Code gives custody to unwed mother absent agreement otherwise; Perez’s affidavit failed to show the Civil Code did not apply
Adequacy of district court’s evidentiary process / Due process claim	Expeditious hearing satisfied Hague/ICARA; Reyes entitled to prompt remedy	Perez argued seven days’ notice and expedited proceedings denied meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court held no due process violation: four-day evidentiary hearing, continuance granted, broad opportunity to present evidence sufficed given Convention’s emphasis on expedition
Reliance on foreign‑law affidavits and evidentiary weight	District court relied on statutory Guatemalan law and factual record rather than a single foreign affidavit	Perez contended court improperly accepted Reyes’s counsel’s affidavit and ignored contrary local counsel	Court noted it did not rely on that affidavit and properly interpreted Guatemalan statutory law; rejected Perez’s challenge

Key Cases Cited

Hanley v. Roy, 485 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007) (purpose and scope of Hague Convention)
Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Hague appeals)
Seaman v. Peterson, 766 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2014) (shared intent and habituation factors)
Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (factors for habitual residence and limited inquiry of Convention)
Delvoye v. Lee, 329 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2003) (breakdown of parental relationship contemporaneous with birth can prevent formation of habitual residence)
Kijowska v. Haines, 463 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2006) (abductor’s failure to use Hague remedy can favor finding new habitual residence)
Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (acclimatization and the child’s social environment)
West v. Dobrev, 735 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013) (due process and expedition under the Hague Convention)
Chafin v. Chafin, 742 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2014) (visitor‑visa circumstances and habitual residence analysis)
Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (shared family steps required to infer settled purpose)
Feder v. Evans‑Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) (objective family steps demonstrating settled relocation)