Flores Castro v. Hernandez Renteria, No. 19-16048 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for the return of a child to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Petitioner is the child's paternal half-sister and respondent is the child's maternal grandmother, who has been raising the child in Las Vegas, Nevada since 2017.
In this case, the district court clearly erred in its factual finding regarding the date of removal, which was August 25, 2017. Furthermore, respondent's removal of the child was wrongful because it breached the Mexican court's rights of custody. Because the petition was filed more than one year after the date of wrongful removal, the district court had discretion to decline to order the return of the child. Because petitioner does not appeal the district court's findings that the child is now settled in Las Vegas, nor does petitioner argue that the district court abused its discretion in declining to order return, the panel affirmed the district court's discretionary decision not to order the return of the child pending custody proceedings.
Court Description: Hague Convention The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a petition for the return of a child to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Petitioner, the child’s paternal half-sister, alleged that the child’s maternal grandmother either wrongfully removed her from Mexico or wrongfully retained her in the United States. The panel concluded that the date of wrongful removal or retention was more than one year prior to the date of the petition, which was filed on September 7, 2018. The panel held that the district court clearly erred in its factual finding regarding the date of removal, which was August 25, 2017. The panel further held that the grandmother’s removal of the child was wrongful because it was in breach of a Mexican court’s rights of custody. The panel gave great weight to the Mexican court’s own rulings regarding the wrongfulness of the removal, and it concluded that neither the petitioner nor the Mexican court gave affirmative prior consent to the child’s removal from Mexico. Because the date of wrongful removal was more than one year prior to the date of the petition, the return of the child was not mandatory, and the district court had discretion whether to order her return to Mexico. The panel affirmed the district court’s discretionary decision not to order the FLORES CASTRO V. HERNANDEZ RENTERIA 3 return of the child pending custody proceedings because she was now settled in Las Vegas, Nevada.
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.