Colchester v. Lazaro, No. 21-35210 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
S.L.C. is the now-six-year-old, U.S.-citizen daughter of Lazaro, who resides near Seattle, and Colchester, who resides in Spain. Colchester was given sole custody of S.L.C. by a Spanish court. Lazaro was visiting Colchester and S.L.C. when the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. According to Lazaro, during that visit, Colchester often “screamed at and acted aggressively.” Lazaro testified about several specific instances of abuse. Lazaro absconded with S.L.C.and, unable to stay in Spain because of the lockdown, fled to Seattle with S.L.C.
Colchester filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Spanish court issued a warrant, with an order declaring that Spain was S.L.C.’s habitual residence. In Washington state, Lazaro filed petitions for domestic violence orders of protection. Colchester filed a Hague Convention petition in Washington. After dismissing Lazaro’s petitions, the state court issued a warrant, authorizing law enforcement to seize S.L.C. Lazaro responded by temporarily hiding with S.L.C.
The district court granted the Hague Convention petition. The Ninth Circuit vacated. Neither the Hague Convention nor its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, provides for the appointment of a psychologist as of right but the district court erred in refusing the mother’s request for such an appointment to provide an expert opinion regarding her allegations of abuse and psychological harm to the child. The district court also erred by failing to make findings of fact adequate to support its order.
Court Description: Hague Convention The panel (1) vacated the district court’s order, after a bench trial, granting a petition for the return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and (2) remanded for appointment of a psychologist and a new trial. The child’s father sought the return of the child to Spain. The mother argued that returning the child to her father, who she alleged had abused both her and her baby, would present a grave risk of psychological or physical harm to the child, and a defense under Article 13(b) of the Convention therefore applied. The panel held that neither the Hague Convention nor its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, provides for appointment of a psychologist as of right. Nonetheless, the district court erred in refusing the mother’s request for appointment of a forensic psychologist to examine the child and provide an expert opinion regarding the mother’s allegations of abuse and the psychological harm to the child arising therefrom. The panel concluded that the district court’s refusal to permit the requested examination amounted to an abuse of discretion that rendered the subsequent bench trial fundamentally unfair. COLCHESTER V. LAZARO 3 The panel held that the district court also erred by failing to make findings of fact adequate to support its order returning the child to Spain under Fed. R. App. P. 52(a).
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.