The parties stipulated to Petitioner’s prima facie case-in-chief to seek the return of their child from Florida to Venezuela. Therefore, at issue in this Hague Abduction Convention return matter were the Respondent Mother’s exceptions to the child’s return.

Respondent argued consent, but the court found that while the Father was aware of the Mother’s plan to leave Venezuela, his awareness was not equivalent to his consent that she remove the child. The Mother also argued that the Father subsequently acquiesced in the child’s removal, but the court found that the Father “consistently voices his opposition in WhatsApp messages and filed petitions with various authorities seeking M’s return.”

The Mother also argued that the child was now settled in Florida, and the court agreed. The Father filed his petition well beyond one year after the abduction, and the child, age six at the time of the petition’s filing, was found to be old enough to establish relationships and emotional ties to the community. He had lived in Sanford, FL for around 15 months before the petition was filed, his home was stable, he was being tested for the gifted program at school, the child regularly attended church, Mother’s husband was providing financial support, he had strong ties to family in Florida, the child’s health needs were being met by his Mother, and he did not retain any meaningful ties to Venezuela (although this may be because of Respondent’s acts). Finally, an immigration lawyer testified that the Mother and child were applying for asylum, and had strong applications, and were not at risk of being deported anytime soon.

The court explored whether, in its discretion, the child was concealed so as to negate certain factors that could lead to the child’s settlement in Florida. But, the court concluded that the Mother did not act to conceal the child. She did not move around, did not keep the child from school, did not keep the child from church or community activities, and the Father did not allege that she has taken these types of concealment measures. Father alleged that the Mother concealed the child, but a witness testified that he had seen the child in January 2022, and then informed the Petitioner Father that very month of the child’s location. The same witness also testified that he was with the child at his current apartment in October 2022, and relayed that information to the Father. Therefore, the court concluded that the Father knew of the child’s location some 2 months after the child arrived in the USA. The child further met with the Father’s cousins and attended one of his cousin’s weddings during this timeframe. Therefore, the court concluded that the Father provided no unique circumstances that would justify returning a settled child.

In March 2023, the Magistrate recommended that the Petitioner’s return petition be denied. In May 2023, the court adopted the recommendation to deny the petition.