Vasquez v. Acevedo
931 F.3d 519
6th Cir.2019Background
- Child TCG (Colombian citizen) born in Medellín in 2014; parents are unmarried Colombian nationals Edison Carvajal Vasquez (father) and Paola Gamba Acevedo (mother).
- August 2016: Carvajal brought one-year-old TCG to the U.S.; left him with Gamba's sister in Tennessee when Gamba was detained by immigration authorities; Carvajal returned to Colombia.
- Gamba later joined TCG in Tennessee after release; Carvajal visited in December 2016, proposed marriage, then left the child in the U.S. again in January 2017.
- Relationship broke down in early 2017; Carvajal filed a Hague Convention petition on Feb 9, 2018, alleging wrongful retention based on TCG overstaying his tourist visa; district court identified date of alleged retention as Feb 24, 2017.
- District court found U.S. to be TCG’s habitual residence based on parents’ last shared intent (parental-intent standard) and alternatively on acclimatization; denied Carvajal’s Hague petition. Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate habitual-residence standard (parental-intent vs. acclimatization) | Carvajal: acclimatization should govern because child spent months in U.S. | Gamba: child too young to form meaningful acclimatization; use parental-intent | Court: parental-intent appropriate for 2-year-4-month-old; not erroneous to prefer it here |
| Burden to prove habitual residence | Carvajal: he can show habitual residence was Colombia | Gamba: Carvajal failed to show shared intent for Colombia | Court: petitioner bears preponderance; Carvajal failed to meet it |
| Existence of parents’ last shared intent (where child would live) | Carvajal: intended child’s U.S. stay to be temporary; would return to Colombia or Kelly would take child back | Gamba: both intended child to live in U.S.; Carvajal knew and acquiesced | Court: no clear error in finding last shared intent was that TCG live with Gamba in the U.S.; Carvajal acquiesced |
| Alternative acclimatization finding | Carvajal: child had acclimatized to U.S. (family, routines) | Gamba: child too young and lacked participation in programs that show acclimatization | Court: did not need to resolve because parental-intent ruling dispositive; district court also found acclimatization but appellate decision rests on parental-intent holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (purpose of Hague Convention is to deter wrongful removals and restore pre‑abduction status quo)
- Taglieri v. Monasky, 907 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2018) (acclimatization standard and deference to district findings on habitual residence)
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 867 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2017) (recognizing parental‑intent standard for especially young children)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (factors relevant to acclimatization inquiry)
- Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (definition of "settled mutual intent" for parental‑intent standard)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (use of external indicia when parents disagree about intent)
- Barzilay v. Barzilay, 600 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (parental status and visa type relevant to intent to remain)
- Whiting v. Krassner, 391 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2004) (young children can form meaningful connections; age relevant to acclimatization)