Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00352/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:11601 International Child Abduction Remedies Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jazmin Cortez Gonzalez, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Israel Acosta Pena, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-16-00352-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Petitioner Jazmin Gonzalez has filed an Amended Petition for Return of Child 

under the Hague Convention. (Doc. 7.) Respondent Israel Pena opposes the petition. 

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on July 5, 2016. Based on the following findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, the Court denies the petition. 

I. Background 

 On February 8, 2016, Gonzalez filed a petition for return of her two minor 

children, J.P. and A.P., to Mexico pursuant to the International Child Abduction 

Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq., which implements the provisions of 

the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 19 I.L.M. 

1501 (1980). Gonzalez alleges Pena, J.P. and A.P.’s father, has refused to return the 

Children to Mexico. Pena and the Children currently reside in Scottsdale, Arizona. 

II. Findings of Fact 

 Gonzalez is a Mexican citizen residing in Santiago Ixcuintla, La Presa, Nayarit, 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Mexico. Pena is a Mexican citizen residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. The parties are the 

parents of two Children: J.P., born in 2007, and A.P., born in 2005. The parties were 

never married, but resided together in Scottsdale prior to and after the births of the 

Children. Both Children were born in Scottsdale and are dual citizens of Mexico and the 

United States. 

 Gonzalez, Pena, and the Children resided in Scottsdale until approximately four 

years ago when Gonzalez decided to move to Nayarit, Mexico with the Children. Pena 

continued to reside in Scottsdale and visited the Children in Mexico under the 

supervision of Gonzalez for approximately 21 days per year. There are no court orders 

dictating the parties’ parenting time. 

 On June 7, 2015, Gonzalez agreed that the Children could visit Pena in Scottsdale 

unsupervised during a break from school. Gonzalez also intended that, while in Arizona, 

the Children could renew their United States Passports. The parties agreed that Pena 

would return the Children to Mexico by August 6, 2015 so that they would be home in 

time to for the start of school. 

 Approximately one week before the Children were to be returned to Mexico, A.P. 

informed Pena that she had been sexually abused by Gonzalez’s live-in boyfriend. As a 

result, Pena decided to not allow the Children to return to Mexico. On August 8, 2015, 

Gonzalez’s mother traveled to Scottsdale to locate the Children and bring them back to 

Mexico. Pena, however, refused to allow her to speak with the Children alone and 

refused to allow the Children to return. 

 At the hearing, Gonzalez testified regarding the allegations of abuse as follows: 

My daughter [A.P.], she’s the ten-year-old, one day when she was angry 

because she was being punished she told me that my current boyfriend was 

touching her. Only touching. Not sexually abusing. Of course I spoke to 

my boyfriend. He denied everything. And it was impossible because my 

teenage daughter sleeps in the same room with my other daughters. And I 

am always paying attention to them. But anyway, I did believe what she 

told me in that moment and I kicked my boyfriend out of the house. I told 

him to leave and never come back. Two weeks passed and my daughter 

[A.P.] came to me crying one day and she said that she regretted what she 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

had done, that she had lied, that she said it in a moment when she was 

angry. Because she wanted me to go back to her dad and for her dad and I 

to live together again. 

Gonzalez testified that she did not report the incident to the police because it was 

impossible for such abuse to occur. She did not believe it could happen because she 

always closely watches her daughters. She did, however, kick her boyfriend out to show 

“[A.P.] that I was there for her [and] to show her that I was listening to her and to give 

the situation time to clarify[.]” Gonzalez further stated that A.P. told her that the abuse 

occurred in the bedroom she shares with her sisters, which Gonzalez deemed impossible 

because she is the only person with the bedroom door key. 

 In March 2016, Pena contacted case worker Rozalind Wirth of the Arizona 

Department of Child Services who investigated the allegations of abuse. At the hearing, 

Wirth also testified regarding the abuse. She stated that A.P. told her that Gonzalez’s 

boyfriend, Jorge, had “touched her inappropriately on her bottom, the front and the 

back.” A.P. stated that it occurred once in her bedroom in Mexico, though Wirth 

admitted she did not ask how many instances of abuse had occurred. She stated that she 

has not yet fully completed her investigation because she was unable to contact Gonzalez 

or her boyfriend in Mexico. 

 Dr. Ester Ruiz, a psychologist and psychiatric nurse practitioner, also testified 

regarding the abuse. Ruiz first saw both A.P. and J.P. in May 2016 and diagnosed A.P. 

with post-traumatic stress disorder. She stated that, due to the abuse, A.P. was having 

disruption in her sleep, anxiety, depressive symptoms, nightmares, and difficulty coping 

with her thoughts and feelings about the abuse. Ruiz testified that both A.P. and J.P. 

have told her that they do not want to return to Mexico, though J.P. has denied being 

sexually abused. Ruiz stated that it would be harmful to J.P. if she were to be separated 

from her sister. 

 Ruiz further testified that A.P. told her the abuse occurred several times over a 

three year period. Ruiz understood that it occurred when A.P. was left home alone during 

the day to take care of a two-year old child, as well as when Gonzalez was asleep in 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

another room. She said that A.P. told her that Gonzalez’s boyfriend rubbed “her chest, 

her genitals, her buttocks and her thighs and push[ed] her against his erection and tr[ied] 

to force her to touch his penis[.]” Ruiz stated that A.P. told her that this occurred when 

she was alone with Gonzalez’s boyfriend in the bedroom. 

 Pena testified last. He stated that he first learned of the abuse in late July 2015. 

He stated that both girls were acting differently, would not eat, and did not want to go 

back to Mexico. A.P. disclosed the incident while they were driving, and Pena pulled off 

the freeway in shock. Pena stated that he called the Scottsdale Police Department, but 

could not file a report because the incident took place in Mexico. Eventually, he 

communicated to Gonzalez that he wanted to keep the Children in Scottsdale, but did not 

mention anything about the abuse. A few months later, after having difficulty finding a 

Spanish-speaking psychologist, he contacted Ruiz about therapy. 

 From this testimony, the Court concludes that A.P. suffered sexual abuse in 

Mexico at the hands of Gonzalez’s boyfriend at least once. Though Gonzalez claims 

A.P. recanted her story, A.P. later confirmed the abuse to Pena, as well as to Wirth and 

Ruiz. The allegations are consistent, and Wirth and Ruiz have stated that A.P., as well as 

her sister J.P., have suffered emotionally from the incident. In addition, Gonzalez’s 

testimony regarding A.P.’s recantation is not credible. Gonzalez provides no explanation 

as to why A.P. would state that she was abused to three individuals after recanting her 

allegations to Gonzalez. And her claim that no abuse could have occurred because she 

had the only key to the bedroom is illogical. If true, this suggests that Gonzalez locked 

the Children in their room every night, making them unable to get up to use the bathroom 

or to escape during a fire. Moreover, Gonzalez’s testimony that she locked the children 

in the bedroom just as plausibly suggests that she recognized a need to protect the 

Children from her boyfriend. 

III. Conclusions of Law 

 “The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 

seeks to deter parents from moving their children across international borders in order to 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

gain the upper hand in custody disputes.” Aguilera v. De Lara, No. CV14-1209 PHX 

DGC, 2014 WL 3427548, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2014) (citing Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 

F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2010)). “A court that receives a petition under the Hague 

Convention may not resolve the question of who, as between the parents, is best suited to 

have custody of the child.” Cuellar, 596 F.3d at 508. Instead, the court’s role is limited 

to determining whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, removal or retention of the 

child is wrongful under the Convention, and if so, order return of the minor child to the 

country of habitual residence. Convention, Art. 12. A removal is wrongful if 

(a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . . under the 

law of the state in which the child was habitually resident immediately 

before removal or retention; and 

(b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, 

either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal 

or retention. 

Convention, Art. 3. 

 Notwithstanding a finding that the removal or retention was wrongful, the court 

need not order return if “there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child 

to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” 

Convention, Art. 13(b). This exception is to be narrowly construed, and “is not a license 

for a court in the abducted-to country to speculate on where the child would be happiest.” 

Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2005). The burden lies with the 

respondent to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the exception applies. 

22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A). 

A. Wrongful Removal 

 To determine whether removal is wrongful, the following questions are relevant: 

(1) When did the removal or retention at issue take place? (2) Immediately 

prior to the removal or retention, in which state was the child habitually 

resident? (3) Did the removal or retention breach the rights of custody 

attributed to the petitioner under the law of the habitual residence? (4) Was 

the petitioner exercising those rights at the time of the removal or retention? 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Jaksic v. Serif, No. CV-14-01937-PHX-NVW, 2014 WL 6685375, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 

26, 2014) (quoting Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

 The parties agree that the retention took place on August 6, 2015, when Pena 

refused to return the Children to Mexico. In addition, the Court finds that Mexico was 

the “habitual residence” of the Children when the action was filed. “In answering the 

question of habitual residency, a court should consider whether the child has been 

physically present [in the country] for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization 

and whether the place has a degree of settled purpose from the child’s perspective.” 

Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(alterations in original). Here, it is undisputed that the Children lived with Gonzalez in 

Mexico for nearly four years prior to the retention. There, they attended school and 

Gonzalez cared for their basic needs. Four years is sufficient time to acclimate to 

Mexico, and the Court finds the Children were settled there for purposes of establishing 

habitual residency.1

 

 The Court also finds that Gonzalez had custodial rights to the Children under the 

Mexican law doctrine of patria potestas, see, e.g., Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 459 

(1st Cir. 2000) (finding the doctrine sufficient to establish custodial rights under the 

Convention); Aguilera, 2014 WL 3427548, at *2 (noting that the doctrine affords both 

parents the right to care for, reside with, and otherwise provide for the necessities of their 

children), that she was exercising those rights at the time of the retention, and that Pena’s 

retention of the Children violated those rights. It is undisputed that Gonzalez did not 

consent to the Children remaining in the United States. Gonzalez permitted the Children 

to remain with Pena during school break, but she instructed him to return them to Mexico 

in time for the beginning of school. Gonzalez demanded the Children back and even sent 

her mother to Pena’s residence. Accordingly, having answered all questions in the 

affirmative, the Court finds Gonzalez has established by a preponderance of the evidence 

 

1

 Pena argues the Children were wrongfully removed from Arizona in 2012, but fails to provide any evidence in support of this contention. 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that Pena’s retention is wrongful under the Convention.2 

B. Grave Risk Exception 

 Although Pena’s retention is wrongful, the Court finds he has met his burden of 

presenting clear and convincing evidence that returning the Children to Mexico presents a 

“grave risk” or would be an “intolerable situation.” “Sexual abuse most certainly 

constitutes a ‘grave risk’ of physical or psychological harm.” Ortiz v. Martinez, 789 F.3d 

722, 728 (7th Cir. 2015). As explained above, the Court concludes that the evidence 

clearly and convincingly establishes that Gonzalez’s live in boyfriend sexually abused 

A.P. at least once. Moreover, Gonzalez’s reaction to the incident is somewhat troubling. 

Gonzalez stated that she did not believe any abuse could have occurred because she had 

the only key to the bedroom. But A.P. reported to Ruiz that at least one instance of abuse 

occurred while she was babysitting another child at the home. At one point, Gonzalez 

stated that she believed only “touching” had occurred, “not sexual abuse.” And she 

stated that she kicked her boyfriend out of the house not because she believed any abuse 

had occurred, but because she wanted the “situation to clarify.” Notably, not once during 

her testimony did Gonzalez state that she would take any steps to protect the Children 

from abuse if they returned to Mexico.3

 The evidence also demonstrates that the Children have already suffered 

psychologically from the abuse. A.P. has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress 

disorder, and J.P. has been experiencing anger issues with the incident. A.P. has 

experienced some depression, and experiences trouble sleeping and nightmares. Though 

J.P. has denied being abused, and while general “adjustment problems that would attend 

the relocation of most children” does not meet the grave risk exception, the Court finds 

 

2

 The Court is unable to determine whether the Children are mature enough for their objections to returning to Mexico to be considered. The Children did not testify at the hearing, and the parties presented no evidence of each child’s level of maturity. 

3

 Some courts, even in the face of grave risk or an intolerable situation, return the 

child to his habitual residence if certain “undertakings” are guaranteed by the parent. See 

Simcox, 511 F.3d at 605-06 (citing Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 226 (3d Cir. 

1995)). Here, Gonzalez offered no such guarantees. 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

separating the Children would significantly aggravate their emotional state. C.f. 

Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1067 (6th Cir. 1996) (finding adjustment problems 

with relocation in case with no alleged abuse did not meet grave risk exception). 

Consequently, the Court is convinced that sending the Children back to Mexico to live 

with Gonzalez would pose a grave risk to their physical and psychological well-being or 

constitute an intolerable situation for them. 

 C. Conclusion 

 In sum, the Court finds that Pena wrongfully retained the Children in Scottsdale, 

Arizona. Given the clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse, however, the Court 

finds that returning the Children to Mexico would pose a grave risk to their physical and 

psychological well-being. To be clear, the Court is not deciding who is the better parent, 

nor is it concluding that Pena is entitled to custody of the Children. Those issues may be 

resolved in the appropriate forum at a later date. In its discretion, the Court is deciding 

only that, in light of the evidence presented, the Children should not be ordered to return 

to Mexico. 

IV. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

 Both parties requested attorneys’ fees and costs in their respective pleadings. But 

ICARA “does not authorize a court to order a petitioner to pay a respondent’s fees and 

costs if the court does not order return of the child.” Jaksic, 2014 WL 6685375, at *6; 22 

U.S.C. § 9007(b). Accordingly, because the Court is not ordering return of the Children 

to Mexico, the parties will bear their own fees and costs incurred in this matter. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that Gonzalez’s Amended Petition for Return of Child, (Doc. 

7), is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 Dated this 7th day of July, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00352-DLR Document 42 Filed 07/08/16 Page 9 of 9