Custodio v. Torres Samillan, No. 16-1268 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseTorres are the parents of M. and G. who were born and resided in Peru until Torres removed them to the United States. Custodio seeks return of the children to Peru under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. 9001–11. The district court denied Custodio's petition. Because M. turned 16 during the pendency of these proceedings, the court concluded that the Hague Convention no longer applies to him and dismissed as moot the appeal as to M. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that G.’s statements constituted an objection within the meaning of the mature child defense. Finally, the court concluded that the district court’s decision to respect 15-year-old G.’s opposition to returning to Peru and desire to remain in the United States was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to G.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Because one of the children involved in this matter turned 16 during the pendency of the proceedings, the Hague Convention no longer applies to him; where respondent asserted a "mature child" defense to the petition, the district court's evaluation of 15-year-old child's testimony regarding his desire to remain in the U.S. was entitled to deference; the commentary to the Explanatory Report regarding the Conventions states that a child's views on the matter can be conclusive on the issue of return; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's request to return the child to Peru where the child clearly stated his desire to remain in the U.S. with respondent.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.