Vasquez v. Colores
648 F.3d 648
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Colores Vasquez seeks return of his daughter I.R.C. to Mexico under the Hague Convention as implemented by ICARA.
- District court granted the petition despite Ms. Colores contesting, and I.R.C. was temporarily placed in Dr. Colores's custody.
- Ms. Colores moved for a continuance to obtain evidence from Mexico and security footage; the district court denied the motion.
- Ms. Colores claimed Article 13(b) grave risk to I.R.C. if returned; testimony alleged abuse by Dr. Colores (shaking, head-butting, hitting).
- District court conducted evidentiary hearings and found no grave risk; it relied on a pediatric neurologist’s findings and credibility concerns.
- Ms. Colores appealed, challenging the continuance denial and the exclusion of two witnesses/testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the continuance denial an abuse of discretion? | Colores contends more time was needed to gather material evidence. | Colores failed to show materiality and delay caused prejudice; expediency favored denial. | No abuse; district court acted within discretion. |
| Was Gangl’s testimony properly excluded as irrelevant or cumulative? | Gangl would corroborate Dr. Colores’s anger/rage toward I.R.C. | Testimony was not directly tied to abuse of I.R.C. and was cumulative. | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Was Edleson's expert testimony properly excluded as irrelevant or unreliable? | Edleson offered specialized insight on domestic violence affecting Hague cases. | No interview/testimony connecting to I.R.C.; testimony would not aid the fact-finder. | Exclusion did not warrant reversal. |
| Did the evidence support the Article 13(b) grave-risk exception to return? | Abuse and risk to I.R.C. justified non-return under Article 13(b). | No grave risk established; no intolerable situation if returned pending custody resolution. | District court’s finding of no grave risk affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1995) (framework for Article 13(b) analysis and Hague policy)
- Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (grave risk categories: zone of war, abuse/neglect)
- Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d 374, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1995) (see above (duplicate entry kept for accuracy) })
- Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2009) (testing impact of excluded evidence on outcomes)
- Dunn v. Nexgrill Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2011) (admissibility determinations reviewed for abuse)
- Gill v. Maciejewski, 546 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2008) (prejudice standard in evidentiary rulings)
- Beard v. Flying J, Inc., 266 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2001) (continuance standard and expediency considerations)
- Bady v. Murphy-Kjos, 628 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2011) (reversal on evidentiary issue requires prejudice)