1

 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2002).

 2 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000).

 3 Doc. 39 at 3. 

 4 Gonzalez, 311 F.3d at 954; Whallon, 230 F.3d at 456.

 5 T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (1980)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

United States’s Supplemental Reply Extradition Brief

In her supplemental brief, Moreno-Vazquez misconstrues the definition of patria

postestas as that term is defined under Mexican law. Instead of looking to the relevant

Mexican law to determine what establishes and what are the natures of patria potestas,

Moreno-Vazquez relies on two cases – Whallon v. Lynn1 and Gonzalez v. Gutierrez.

2

After so doing, Moreno-Vazquez then concludes that based upon this U.S. law, “patria

potestas may only confer custody rights where there is no Court order or other agreement

to the contrary.”3 This is just not so. Moreno-Vazquez misunderstands the actual

holdings of these cases, and what significance, if any, they have on this case. 

In both Whallon and Gonzalez, the issue was whether patria potestas could

“confer . . . rights of custody under the [Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of

International Child Abduction]”4(“the Hague”). As relevant here, the Hague5 is a treaty

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 4
 6 Gonzalez, 311 F.3d at 945.

 7 Lalo v. Malca, 318 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1156 (S.D. Fla. 2004). 

 8 Whallon, 230 F.3d at 459.

 9 Malca, 318 F.Supp.2d at 1556; see also In re B. del C.S.B., 525 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

(distinguishing Gonzalez and noting that the specific “custody order therefore extinguished some rights the

father would have otherwise been entitled to under patria potestas”). 

that provides a private civil action only for the wrongful international removal of a child

from a parent that has a specifically Hague-defined “right of custody,”6

 rather than a

parent who only has specifically Hague-defined “access rights.” 

As a result, the Whallon case was attempting to determine if patria postestas

created a “right of custody,” rather than just a “right of access”–as those terms are

understood under the Hague–if there was no legal written custody agreement between the

parties, and the Gonzalez case was attempting to determine whether “the principle of

patria potestas could be invoked to create [the Hague’s idea of a] right of custody where

a formally executed custody agreement made no mention of it.”7

 

Whallon concluded that the State of Baja California Sur’s patria potestas does

create a “right of custody,” rather than just a “right of access” under the Hague,8

 while

Gonzalez concluded that if “the parties had executed a custody agreement, without

awarding patria potestas rights, [then] the legal principle of patria potestas does not

operate to accord custody rights” as that term is defined under the Hague.9

The issue in this case, however, is not whether the patria potestas fit under the

Hague’s definition of “right of custody” versus “right of access.” Instead, the issue is

simply determining the meaning of patria potestas under the applicable Mexican law in

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 2 of 4
 10 See Exhibit 6, p. 123 of the extradition materials.

 11 See Exhibit 6 of the extradition materials.

 12 C.C.F., art. 417 (Mex.)(“The personal relationships between the minor and his or her parents can only

be limited if there is a justified cause . . . . Only a judicial order may limit, suspend or lose the right to

cohabitate that isreferred to in the preceding paragraph, as well asin the cases ofsuspension or loss of patria

potestas . . . .”)(unofficial translation attached at Exhibit C of Supplemental Extradition Brief).

order to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that Moreno-Vazquez

took her children without the consent of a person who was “lawfully exercising patria

potestas”10 or custody rights. 

Moreover, even if Gonzalez and Whallen were somehow applicable to this case,

they still would not prevent the Court from determining that Moreno-Vazquez’s still has

patria potestas. Unlike in Gonzalez, the custody agreement in this case specifically

recognized and incorporated the couple’s patria potestas over their first child, L.F.C.M.11 There

has been no judicial order to vacate these rights, and they cannot otherwise be extinguished.12

Thus, all the elements of child trafficking are met. Moreno-Vazquez should be extradited

to face that charge, along with the charge of forgery, in Mexico. 

Respectfully submitted this the 2nd of July, 2008.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 3 of 4
/s/ Andrea Tisi

Andrea Tisi

Senior Trial Attorney

Office of International Affairs

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Phone: (202) 353-4469

Fax: (202) 514-0080

E-mail: Andrea.Tisi@usdoj.gov

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 2, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

following: Ben Elton Bruner. 

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 4 of 4