Sebastian Cartes v. Lisa Phillips
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13457
5th Cir.2017Background
- Father (Sebastian Cartes) and mother (Lisa Phillips) are U.S. citizens; daughter O.C.P. born in California in 2013. Parents married 2013; family moved and traveled frequently.
- Cartes moved to Paraguay in 2015; Phillips and O.C.P. joined him in October 2015. Both countries maintained some continuing ties (U.S. health insurance, Houston apartment initially renewed).
- In Paraguay, parents enrolled O.C.P. in Paraguayan preschool; Cartes testified that both parents discussed and agreed Paraguay would be the family’s base.
- Relationship was unstable with periods of reconciliation; text messages show Phillips sometimes referring to Paraguay as “home” and later expressing desire to return to the U.S.
- On October 24, 2016, Phillips returned to Houston with O.C.P.; Cartes filed a Hague Convention petition (Dec. 1, 2016) seeking the child’s return to Paraguay.
- After a three-day bench trial the district court found Paraguay was O.C.P.’s habitual residence and that removal to the U.S. was wrongful; this appeal challenges legal standard, factual findings on shared intent, and exclusion of certain email evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Phillips’s Argument | Cartes’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for habitual residence | District court applied wrong legal standard—required explicit meeting of minds to abandon prior residence | District court used settled parental-intent framework (shared intent/settled purpose) | Court: no legal error; district court cited and applied controlling test |
| Existence of shared intent to make Paraguay habitual residence | No shared intent; history of discord and continued U.S. ties make finding implausible | Parents agreed to make Paraguay home (preschool enrollment, texts, reconciliations) | Court: district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Timing of shared intent (initial move vs later settlement) | Shared intent must coincide with initial relocation in Oct 2015 | Shared intent can develop later; may be found if family manifested settled purpose | Court: agreed intent can crystallize after move; finding plausible |
| Exclusion of real-estate email evidence | Excluded emails showing plans to rent in California were relevant to intent and exclusion was error | Emails did not state reason for apartment search and therefore were not dispositive | Court: exclusion reviewed for abuse of discretion; any error harmless—emails didn’t undercut trial testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (U.S. 2013) (Hague Convention generally requires return of wrongfully removed children to habitual residence)
- Delgado v. Osuna, 837 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2016) (habitual-residence is mixed question; parental shared intent central for young children)
- Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (shared intent/settled purpose approach to habitual residence)
- Berezowsky v. Ojeda, 765 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2014) (district court factual findings on shared intent reviewed for clear error)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (shared intent may arise after relocation; stay of ambiguous duration can become indefinite)
- Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2009) (consider all available evidence in Convention habitual-residence inquiries)
- Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cty., 860 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (low threshold for relevance)
- French v. Allstate Indem. Co., 637 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (clear-error standard described)
- Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)