Vieira v. De Souza, 22f4th304

Vieira (Brazilian) and De Souza (U.S. citizen) had an on‑again/off‑again relationship in Brazil; their only child, Minor S.V., was born in Brazil in 2014 and holds dual Brazilian/U.S. citizenship.
De Souza moved to Massachusetts in December 2018 and left Minor S.V. living with Vieira in Brazil; no formal custody order existed and the child lived with Vieira for nearly two years.
On November 22, 2020, a maternal aunt took Minor S.V. to a medical appointment but instead put the child on a flight to Massachusetts; De Souza then informed Vieira the child would not return to Brazil.
Vieira filed a Hague/ICARA petition (April 27, 2021) seeking return to Brazil; the district court found the removal wrongful and ordered return, concluding De Souza failed to prove the grave‑risk exception by clear and convincing evidence.
De Souza argued on appeal that (1) the district court erred by requiring abuse be directed at the child for the grave‑risk defense, and (2) the court failed to consider the mature‑child exception; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Vieira's Argument	De Souza's Argument	Held
Whether the grave‑risk exception (Art.13(b)/ICARA) bars return	No grave risk; evidence insufficient to show physical/psychological harm to Minor S.V.	Domestic abuse of mother suffices to show grave risk to child; abuse need not be directed at child	Affirmed: De Souza failed to prove grave risk by clear and convincing evidence; abuse here did not show the required grave risk
Whether the mature‑child exception permits declining return	Child not shown to be of sufficient age/maturity; De Souza presented no evidence on maturity	Minor S.V. objects and is acclimated to U.S.; court should have elicited child’s views/appointed guardian ad litem	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in not developing the defense sua sponte and did not clearly err in rejecting it on the merits

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (Hague Convention's return remedy preserves custody decisions for courts of habitual residence)
Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (grave‑risk defense requires clear and convincing evidence and is construed narrowly)
Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (pattern of spousal and child‑directed violence can support grave‑risk defense)
Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000) (verbal/physical abuse of a parent not directed at the child may be insufficient for Article 13(b))
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (explains mature‑child objection under Article 13)
Da Silva v. de Aredes, 953 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2020) (district court's factual role and standard of review in Hague cases)
Avendano v. Balza, 985 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2021) (child maturity is a case‑by‑case factual determination)
Neergaard‑Colón v. Neergaard, 752 F.3d 526 (1st Cir. 2014) (Hague Convention addresses international child abduction and return procedure)