meaning of the hague convention and second after concluding that all the factual correct was that's for the mature child exception were present yet declined to apply that exception for an invalid reason and either one of these errors  merits speaker of the judgment and reversal so i'm not going to hold myself that is a huge expert in mexican law that that it seems to me looking at the statutes that are reproduce fundamental part of mexican or the way the lay on family law it's not wave a bull are capable of being given up their very specific and high bars for for losing  it so maybe from my point of view if you started the second of those two points the mature child exception it would be helpful and obviously my colleagues will let you know what they want to hear about well i'm happy to turn to that your honor although i hope i'll have a mexican family law and in whatever layon but it clearly can be lost by a parent in a number of ways and that's the district court itself concluded one of those ways is if it's superseded by a custody agreement between the parties well what's the statute though if we want to just use our own methodology yes there's this so it's it is supplemental attendants thirty nine don't see in the custody agreement and express stripping of this right on the part of the father mr salazar and your honor as we explain our briefs the reason for that is chapter the code where you where we begin you know we've got articles for twelve thirteen and so on article four fourteen the authorities exercise jointly by both parents and he we understand he's a parent right this no question about that right certainly so i don't know where you get that there has to be an initial granting before it could be taken away what you're your honour's right that article for fourteen seems to speak broadly about parents receiving popular protests cost but article four sixteen is also critical to understanding how this operates in article four sixteen the first sentence says that when both parents recognise a child born out of wedlock and they live together they jointly exert little bit of work they both have to have recognised the child born out of wedlock so that doesn't always happen but if they are both recognising it and they live together then they jointly exert the authority and then we come to the other sentence if they do not live together that's our case then you have articles three eighty and three eighty one for custody but i don't know that they help you that much oh well because there's a distinction the law keeps saying there's a distinction live together and of recognize the child both receive popular protest os and that doesn't and then that it does not make the same affirmation with respect to parents who don't live together is is telling because the code that the methodology of the co clearly is to spell out when popular protest stops rights are retained in situations where that would be would be dubious so for example looking at thirty six of the separate appendix each of the provisions on divorce the code spells out well on the interpretation of the statutes but we've got this letter from a mexican central authority for administration of the hague convention here that says according to the information provided  this retention of this child was wrongful beach was individuals acquire parental rights this patri a protest over a child since the moment of birth were registration before the civil registry as a return these rates can only be restricted by a judicial determination which may modify suspend limit or condition the exercise of such rights there's no express limitation why shouldn't we give considerable deference to so why should we tell the mexican central authority it's wrong about mexican law or have i misunderstood the letter well the it's true that the article fifteen process is an important means of getting of the foreign countries views about these legal issues but i think what the district court in this case recognize is that that i'll put of the article fifteen process is only as good as the input and the problem seemed to be  we don't really know who what what information was provided to the mexican central authority but why aren't they why don't we just take what they say about this parental authority doctrine they know mexican law for sure better than we do and that's why i wanted you to turn to the mature minor exception which does take us more into an understanding of the meaning of the hague convention what concepts go into the ascertainment about whether this particular minor was mature enough to override what would otherwise be the outcome of the convention in bracingly district judge is legal analysis of this issue doesn't get you very far if you i apologize your honor you want us to reverse them that is true but on the question of the significance of the letter  we think you got it right but i'll turn to the mature child sex exception as your honor that would be how requested the the law says that the district judge has discretion not to apply the exception even when the factual perec was a term that but it's not on bridal discretion its discretion not to apply the exception when doing so would further the aims of the convention and the district or the district court's explanation for why rejecting the exception here would further the aims of the convention simply doesn't hold water the and well could we take this side one step at a time after the district judge has met a couple of times with the child the child ultimately says you know course time is going by the judge is worried about that but the child ultimately says i have jacked to going back to mexico yes so we get that statement and there doesn't seem to be a question about the child's maturity so what other factors does the convention permit the district judge to take into account and why was he wrong in the way he looked at them well of factors the factors that the convention directs judges to look at our weather whether withholding the return remedy would further the aims of the convention and then there's also look the question of undue influence if there was undue influence behind the objection that might also be a reason now here the district judge didn't reach on undue influence and he looked to the ant to the aims of the convention and the district court's view it needed to look at as far as the basis for the objection and it thought that that was an improper basis because it thought that that was the product of the wrongful retention and there were two problems with that the first as we said is the immigration issues weren't the only reason for the objection they were one reason they were very important reasons but they weren't the only reason that d s prefers that prefers the schools here in the united states he thinks they give him a better chance to study for his chosen career he wanted to maintain this relationship with this new baby sister so there were a number of reasons and simply to say that one was dispositive didn't mean it was the only one that the court should consider because other issues were were capable of changing the child's mind as well i didn't see aims at the convention as a legal issue or a factual issue it's it's it's a mix question your honor in that we know what the aims of the a disagreement about what would happen after that but nobody absconded with the child here nobody acted with anything about the child's best interests in mind and i see them in my rebuttal time but i'll just say briefly that the the notion that the district judge needed to protect what he called systemic interests by declining to apply the section the exception here is is simply not right that the travel related issues here were not some sort of stratagem to get the d s to object to going back to mexico they that they occurred before the wrongful retention if there was any occurred so there's simply no link between any violation of the convention and the basis for the objection and for that reason we think that the court's reasoning on that point was was incorrect mr waring is it correct the the district judge was having a conversation with us about what would change your mind right no greg you are and part of it was the immigration status of those situations he also has a for example of how mature particular child might be i mean that issue comes up from time to time whether it's a ten year old or a thirteen year old or even an eight year old so you know we're not there that should be the  records call and less comfortable saying that when the district court is assessing the aims of the convention that's anything that a but a legal issue the convention is about what it's about it's actually is an allocation of court kind of convention ultimately so that undesirable behaviors or are deterred that i don't see how ministry of thirty may refuse to turn of course because because maturity isn't in how like do you have are you wearing a red tie you know ok you can look at you you're wearing red tac maturity is a much more it's not the the mayor is not referencing the maturity exception there's reference earlier maturity itself but rather the entire exception because in may return if there's a finding that there is that there is this maturity of the child and the child has an objection to return not worth the court to say or what the treaty rather to say the court may make a determination about whether or not the based on what authorities are the factors the court legitimately can take into account if we accept your position that once we have maybe an agreement even that the child is mature maybe it's a sixteen year old child  quite ready to be emancipated some sixteen year olds are so so what else would be a legitimate consideration well the first remember really were if we were dealing with a sixteen year old child that would be outside the bo is a wrongful abduction case because they all sat down he cooperated getting a passport everybody thought there was going to be this year and then the the dispute arises at the end of the year whether it's just d s is color with the parents are going to sit down and think about it again so the first year isn't really on the table so you know we we have some considerations and there's an allegation made by the district judge that that that the new husband of the mother is filing a form a high one seventy and she's going to get near relative status and she'll be able to regularize her status which would dental and allow her to go to and from mexico i found that actually hilarious i mean you know that the immigration cases that we see do not reveal the wheels turning quite that quickly and it wouldn't surprise me at all for took her five years for the i won seventy to get  processed but putting that to one side why in a case where there's nothing at all abusive about this the parties have been very mature they've had discussions they tried to work through the system the question is you know was this retention wrongful even the district judge says he doesn't think the wife was doing anything wrong that people could have different recollections of the remained he goes out of his way  based off of in part this travel issue and in part it's also based off of these questions about schooling other courts upheld that the schooling question the simply not sufficient and as the judge noted the objection to return evaporated in the face of this well on the face of the hypothetical which may or may not have had any relation to reality he's trying to figure out how much of an influence on your decision is the possibility that you will not be able to see your mother either at all for the next ten years or with any regularity that's that's really the question the judge is making a hypothetical assumption about six months that it teases out this factor for the child how much is his relationship with his mother driving the decision and he basically says a lot you know if i could keep up my relationship with my mother then my feelings might be different certainly or i'd also know that the child on page ninety five of the supplemental the supplemental appendix also notes that in response to a question says that some day is the object he does not object to a time when the judge asks him a question or some that so the child's being very frank he's saying depends how i'm feeling sad i want to shrimp or i want the taco and if you take one away i would say so so they're kind of often this hypothetical  and he's back and forth eventually says you know he's looked at the full list of pros and cons and he object true done case where the court ordered returning because the objection was not strong but was rather a preference is a strict standard to be a what the objection is all the defenses of the division are meant to be viewed very strict and when you've got an objection that as your honor said is kind of not a particularly different question is the child also restate his because well children don't necessarily a much choice about those matters so but that's that's part of what we're talking about here is a couple questions and i hope the believe he has his time i believe he is setting the money that would be going to child support aside into a bank account and it disappeared or waiting the outcome of this case in turn could could you articulate for us  brigham if we look at article four sixteen of the civil code of waverley on what do you think what work does that first sentence do under your interpretation of the law that first sentence as has been indicated previously goes to the recognition of the child if you and me if i could refer to the article fifteen letter the registration of the child or the acknowledgment which would be the registration of the civil registry if i understand your position though that would be the law even if that sentence because of the second sentence of that particular provision that second sentence of that provision talks about how custody is determined by or when the parents are not living together  first sentence is just an introduction essentially to the second sentence so let me ask you i mean maybe this is getting far afield but in some legal systems including the anglo american legal system there was a time when a child was born out of wedlock that it was exclusively the mother who had control of the upbringing of that child the child didn't take his or her father's name it was the mother there could be other societies where one way or the other once the child's been recognized it was exclusively the father so a possibility that pops into my mind is that what the code of new overlay on doing here is saying you know we're taking the modern approach you know when this is a recognized child born out of wedlock you're living together there's joint authority it's not just the mother it's not just the father is that is it would there be any historical basis for such a reading in mexico it seems to me or rather that the the i'm not certain of any historical basis in the mexican law i'm not i'm just wondering what it was like before the twentieth century under mexican examinations as i understand still with very high aspirations and still as far as i know doing very well in the classroom and and you know enjoying the opportunities he has here just briefly or honors on the mature child exception you put your finger judge wood on the problem with the analysis that occurred below is that the court opposed a hypothetical question to d s which didn't reflect reality and that changed his position as one would expect it's an important consideration and then the court both zeroed in on that to the exclusion of the of the all the other reasons for his objection and it simply didn't really give us a clear explanation as to why giving that any weight furthers the aims of the convention again this this travel problem even if it were the only reason for d s objection it has nothing to do with the wrongful retention so declined to apply the exception on that basis does nothing to deter future violations of the convention and it's it's it's not it's not really there's nothing even in the record to suggest that it's any sort of again intentional stratagem or anything on mr galvan part it's simply an event that occurred during the year that they were here with mr salazar's consent and it changed his feelings about where he wanted to live a and the court that simply didn't give a good explanation for why it would take why it wouldn't take d s is clear