Esparza De La Torre v. Login

Background

Carlos Alberto Esparza De La Torre filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, seeking the return of his minor child, I.S.E.L., to Mexico. Esparza and Mylea Evelyn Login are I.S.E.L.’s parents. The child was born in Mexico and lived there continuously for the first five years of her life.

A Mexican court entered a June 2, 2022 custody judgment granting the parents joint custody. The judgment provided that Login would care for I.S.E.L. during weekdays and Esparza would have custody on alternating weekends. It also prohibited either parent from taking I.S.E.L. outside Mexico without the other parent’s written, notarized consent. The court found that Esparza exercised his custody rights under that judgment and did not consent to Login taking I.S.E.L. to live in the United States.

Login filed a domestic-violence restraining-order case in California. The Mendocino County Superior Court denied her request for a restraining order on September 13, 2024. This court considered evidence from that proceeding, along with other evidence and the parties’ submissions and arguments.

Legal standard

The Hague Convention generally requires the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed from the child’s country of habitual residence. Esparza had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that I.S.E.L. was wrongfully removed. If he met that burden, Login had the burden of proving an applicable exception or defense.

A removal is wrongful when it violates custody rights, the person seeking return was exercising those rights when the removal occurred, and the child was habitually living in a participating country immediately before the removal. The court also considered two defenses raised by Login: that I.S.E.L. was settled in the United States and that returning her to Mexico would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

Court’s findings and analysis

The court found that Login removed I.S.E.L. from Mexico in breach of Esparza’s custody rights. It also found that I.S.E.L. was habitually resident in Mexico because she had lived there since birth. The court therefore concluded that Esparza proved the elements required for the child’s return.

The court rejected the well-settled defense because the case began within one year after the child’s removal. It also rejected the grave-risk defense. The court adopted relevant findings from the California restraining-order proceeding, including findings that the alleged domestic violence did not occur and that Esparza did not control Mexican courts or government authorities. The court concluded that Login’s allegations were not credible and that she had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that returning I.S.E.L. would expose her to serious physical or psychological harm.

The court considered reports describing I.S.E.L.’s separation anxiety and general concerns about separation from a primary caregiver. It concluded that the emotional strain described did not meet the Hague Convention’s narrow grave-risk exception.

Disposition

The court granted Esparza’s petition under the Hague Convention for I.S.E.L.’s return to Mexico. At the scheduled October 22, 2024 state-court hearing, Login was ordered to transfer physical custody of I.S.E.L. to Esparza. The court requested that I.S.E.L.’s Mexican and United States passports be turned over to Esparza so he could bring her back to Mexico.

The court denied Esparza’s ex parte application to stay the Mendocino County domestic-violence restraining-order case as moot. It also stated that any attorney-fee motion or memorandum of costs must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Esparza and close the case.