The parties are parents to one daughter, born in Manitoba, Canada. The parties stipulated to petitioner father’s case-in-chief with the mother acknowledging that she was to return to Manitoba with the child on September 7, 2022, but did not do so. The father filed a return petition in Texas district court under the Hague Abduction Convention. The only issue argued at trial was whether the child, aged 9, was mature and objected to returning to Canada. The court conducted an in-camera interview and appointed an ad litem attorney, who provided a report and testimony. “The Fifth Circuit has explained that an in camera interview with the child provides a proper basis for the Court’s consideration of the age and maturity defense.”

While the child was bright and intelligent, “her demeanor, mannerisms, and interests suggest she is of average maturity for a 9-year-old.” The child was home-schooled and her grade level varied between 3rd grade and 5th grade depending on the subject. The court ultimately concluded she was not sufficiently mature to warrant a consideration of her objection. The court further stated that even if it had found her to be mature, it concluded that the child was unduly influenced by “the adults in her life.” The court found that both parents had talked to the child about the litigation and had provided documents from the court proceedings with an “explanation of their meaning” to the child. Therefore, the court granted the father’s petition and ordered the child returned.

The court noted in a footnote, “[b]roadly speaking however, much of the testimony at trial by Petitioner, Respondent, the ad litem, and Respondent’s witness, Mrs. Hinze, relate to whether the minor child’s return to Canada is in the best interests of the child. Because these are custody considerations as to the child’s best interests, this Court does not find this testimony appropriate to consider regarding the Respondent’s affirmative defense.”