• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Washington, D.C.
  • melissa@mkfamily.law
  • (202) 713-5165
  • mkfamily.law
Family Law Across Borders

Family Law Across Borders

International Family Law Resources

  • About MKFL
  • Websites
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Events
  • Contact

Case Update (15 Dec 2022): Esparza v. Nares; Judge concludes children are not mature enough to voice an objection to returning to Mexico

Case Update (15 Dec 2022): Esparza v. Nares; Judge concludes children are not mature enough to voice an objection to returning to Mexico

December 27, 2022

The parties, parents to two daughters, ages 11 and 6, agreed that the children’s mother, Ms. Nares violated a Mexican custody order and removed the children from Mexico to Texas with the intention of unilaterally changing their residence. She moved in with her new husband, who is a legal permanent resident of the United States, and residing in Texas. The only exception argued by the mother is that the children are mature and object to returning to Mexico. The judge granted the mother’s motion to interview the children in chambers, instead of having them testify in a courtroom, after hearing no objection by the father.

The judge acknowledged the awkwardness of the interview – neither child spoke English, both children kept their eyes cast downward and spoke quietly and only a couple of words at a time, often sticking to yes or no, I don’t know, or one word answers. The interview took place in a jury room, with several individuals: the judge, court reporter, interpreter, members of the court staff, but no one the children knew. The court admitted that both children voiced a preference for remaining in Texas with their mother, but even when the judge gave due consideration to the circumstances surrounding the questioning, the court concluded that the children were not mature enough for the court to account for their views. The court, in a footnote, even noted that the younger child could not identify the city, state, or country where she was currently living, nor could she identify where she previously lived. When the court asked the 11-year-old “what part of Texas she liked better than Mexico, she answered, ‘all’.”

On this basis, the court ordered both children returned to Mexico.

Category iconabduction,  Child Abduction,  Hague Abduction Convention,  mature child,  objection

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 108 others, and get a notification to our new posts right on your inbox.

We promise we’ll never spam! Only notifications of new posts.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The use of the name MK Family Law is protected as are the logo and content of this website. The information is provided by MK Family Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

© 2023 · MK Family Law · All Rights Reserved · Developed by RDK

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Attorney Advertising