Mr. Solis filed his Petition for Return of his five-year-old daughter from Texas to Mexico on January 18, 2022. The trial was held on March 9 & 10, 2022, after which the court ordered the Child returned to Mexico. The main issues appear to revolve around the fact that both parents intended for the child to live in Texas indefinitely, but they did not share the identical intent of where in Texas, and with whom.

The parents had been living in Mexico separately since 2018, with both spending time with the child. Ms. Arellano would travel to the United States for work for long (6 month) stretches of time, during which she would leave the child with Mr. Solis in Mexico. Mr. Solis also traveled with the child to the United States during this time to see his family in Texas.

On August 7, 2021, the child and Mr. Solis traveled by air from Mexico to Texas, using one-way plane tickets, claiming he intended to return to Mexico by bus. However, on August 22, 2021, Mr. Solis returned to Mexico due to a work emergency, and left the child with his sister, Ivonne, after enrolling the child in school in Killeen, Texas. Ms. Arellano believed this was Mr. Solis’ unilateral attempt to relocate the child to Texas, to live with his sister and go to school in the USA (something he had previously said he wanted to do). On August 28, 2021, Ms. Arellano drove to Ivonne’s house, picked up the child, and traveled to Dallas. On February 28, 2022, Mr. Solis and Ivonne visited Ms. Arellano’s apartment in Dallas and attempted to remove the child. Mr. Solis and Ms. Arellano’s boyfriend, Pablo, got into a physical altercation, and the police were called.

The court made some significant credibility assessments, discrediting Mr. Solis and concluding that he had actually intended to unilaterally relocate the minor child to Texas to live with his sister. Ultimately it concluded that Mexico was the child’s habitual residence. Even though the parents clearly both intended for the child to live in a different location in the state of Texas, they had no shared intent as to where, with whom, or under what custodial arrangement. All other facts pointed to the child having her home in Mexico.

Ms. Arellano argued that Mr. Solis consented to the retention because he had, himself, brought the child to Texas to live indefinitely, but the court clearly indicated that Mr. Solis’ intent was for the child to reside in a different city in Texas with his sister, and not to live in Dallas with Ms. Arellano, so he did not consent to her retention of the child. (Ms. Arellano separately argued a grave risk, but the court concluded that the evidence did not meet the clear and convincing burden).