Fabiola Betancourt Diaz v. Pietro Miguel Benigno Figueredo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted Fabiola Betancourt Diaz’s petition under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and ordered the return of her two children to Spain. The court found that the children were habitually resident in Spain, that their retention in the United States became wrongful on August 22, 2025, and that Petitioner had established custody rights that she was exercising. The court rejected Respondent’s grave-risk-of-harm and mature-child-objection defenses.

Holdings

1. Where a child was taken to another Contracting State with permission to return, wrongful retention occurs when the custodial parent communicates that the child will not return to the state of habitual residence. The retention here became wrongful on August 22, 2025, when Respondent stated that the children would not board their return flight.
2. Petitioner established a prima facie case under Article 3 because the children were habitually resident in Spain, Respondent's retention breached Petitioner's custody rights under Spanish law, and Petitioner was exercising those rights immediately before the retention.
3. Respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Spain would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation.
4. Respondent failed to establish the mature-child-objection defense because neither child was sufficiently mature for the court to consider her views, and the older child's testimony was the product of undue influence.
5. The proceeding determines only rights under the Hague Convention and does not determine the merits of the underlying custody dispute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Respondent's failure to return the children to Spain on August 22, 2025 constituted wrongful retention under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.
2. Whether Spain was the children's habitual residence immediately before the wrongful retention.
3. Whether Petitioner possessed and was exercising custody rights under the law of the children's habitual residence.
4. Whether Respondent established the Article 13(b) grave-risk-of-harm defense.
5. Whether Respondent established the Article 13 mature-child-objection defense.

Disposition

other