• 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 (17 Sept 2022): Rodriguez v. Molina; return ordered despite child having been physically disciplined by Petitioner in past

Case Update (17 Sept 2022): Rodriguez v. Molina; return ordered despite child having been physically disciplined by Petitioner in past

October 13, 2022

The child’s father, Mr. Molina, removed the minor child from Honduras by walking with the child through Mexico and paying smugglers to transport him and the child across the Mexico-U.S. border. The child’s mother, Ms. Rodriguez, filed a request to have the minor child returned to Honduras. The only genuine issue at hand is whether returning the child to Honduras would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Mr. Molina argued that returning the child to Honduras would expose the child to serious abuse or neglect given the past behavior of Petitioner in disciplining the child using a belt and other implements. The court examined the grave risk of harm argument by looking at three factors: (1) whether the parent abused the child and the frequency they did it; (2) how the parent responds to challenging parenting situations involving the child; and (3) whether there is spousal abuse.

The court had some stern words for both parents – the mother for her use of “physical force to discipline” the child and the father for “subjecting her to the known dangers of illegal smuggling operations to bring her to the United States without documentation or without a stable living arrangement.”

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was some reason to believe that the physical harm to the child would not recur after it reviewed several compelling affidavits by individuals with close relationships to the child, including a teacher, neighbor, and another local parent. The court dismissed an angry voicemail that the father presented as an “inappropriate outburst plain and simple.” In the end, the court concluded that “[i]f the standard were preponderance of the evidence, it would be met.” But, it did not meet the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. Neither parent submitted any proposed ameliorative measures prior to the evidentiary hearing, nor did they present any information on potential measures at or after the hearing. The court expressed an interest in having ameliorative measures established prior to returning the child, but opted to not ask the parents to present additional materials, out of concern it would delay the child’s return.

Mr. Rodriguez has filed an appeal.

Category iconabduction,  ameliorative measures,  Child Abduction,  Grave Risk,  Hague Abduction Convention

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 110 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