Rodriguez v. Molina, No. 22-3048 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed a dispute between two Honduran nationals, Dennys Antonio Reyes Molina and Eny Adamy Mejia Rodriguez, over the wrongful removal of their daughter from Honduras to the United States by the father, Reyes. The mother, Rodriguez, petitioned for the child's return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the United States in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). Reyes conceded wrongful removal, but argued that returning the child to Honduras would put her at grave risk of physical harm.
The District Court found that Reyes had failed to prove such grave risk by clear and convincing evidence and ordered the child's return to Honduras. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court affirmed this decision. The court found that while Rodriguez had physically punished the child in the past, it was not "highly probable" that such punishment would continue upon the child's return to Honduras. The court also held that the injuries inflicted on the child by Rodriguez's past physical punishment did not indicate that the child would face a magnitude of physical harm that would allow the court to lawfully decline to return the child to Honduras.
Reyes argued that the District Court erred by considering his actions in deciding the case. However, the Appeals Court concluded that the District Court did not rely on Reyes's actions in determining that he had not met his evidentiary burden. Therefore, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's decision to order the child's return to Honduras.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Colloton, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. Defendant admitted wrongfully removing the couple's child from Honduras to the U.S. but argued the child should not be returned because doing so would put the child at grave risk of physical harm. The district court found defendant had failed to prove any such grave risk by clear and convincing evidence, and this court affirms; the district court's credibility findings are not clearly erroneous, nor is its assessment of the risk of harm upon the child's return.
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.