[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 20-14557; 21-10378

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00104-LAG

RODRIGO ANDRES ALVAREZ ROMERO, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

MARIA EUGENIA GAJARDO BAHAMONDE, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(May 25, 2021)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 1 of 27
2

Rodrigo Andres Alvarez Romero appeals the district court’s denial of his 

petition for return of his minor children pursuant to the International Child 

Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9010, the implementing 

legislation of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child 

Abduction (“Hague Convention”), Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670. This 

consolidated case also includes his separate appeal of the district court’s order 

denying his request to obtain transcripts from an ex parte hearing. Alvarez 

Romero argues that the district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous and 

objects to the district court’s determinations: that his children are well-settled in 

the United States; that returning them to Chile would present a grave risk to their 

well-being; and that his eldest child was mature enough to object to returning to 

Chile. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition.

I.

A. Factual Background

Because Alvarez Romero disputes the district court’s factual findings, we 

review the factual background in some detail. ABB and PDCB are Alvarez 

Romero and Maria Eugenia Gajardo Bahamonde’s minor daughters. ABB was 

born in 2006 and PDCB was born in 2013. Alvarez Romero and Gajardo 

Bahamonde are citizens of Chile and have never been married. Their children 

were born in Chile and lived there until December 2017, when Alvarez Romero 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 2 of 27
3

took them to the United States. The parties stipulated that they had no formal 

custody or visitation schedule established by a court. 

Gajardo Bahamonde, ABB, and Mauricio Loyola (Gajardo Bahamonde’s 

son from a prior relationship) testified that Alvarez Romero frequently abused 

Gajardo Bahamonde emotionally and physically, including beating her so severely 

she had a miscarriage. Because ABB and PDCB witnessed the abuse, the Chilean 

Family Court ordered them to undergo mental health treatment. In the treatment 

program, both children were diagnosed with “mild psycho-affective damage” due 

to the abuse they saw their father inflict on their mother. This abuse included an 

incident when Alvarez Romero broke her nose and another when he knocked her 

unconscious while the children were lying beside her in bed. Loyola testified that 

Alvarez Romero was often verbally and physically abusive to Gajardo Bahamonde 

in front of the children. He said that Alvarez Romero would hit his mother, call 

her “a whore,” and say she was worth less than him because “he was an engineer 

and she was nothing.” Loyola witnessed one occasion when Alvarez Romero beat 

Gajardo Bahamonde so severely that he broke her ribs. Loyola recounted at least 

one incident where ABB witnessed Alvarez Romero severely beat their mother. 

And both daughters often heard their father verbally abuse their mother. Alvarez 

Romero would beat Loyola as well, including by hitting him with a belt. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 3 of 27
4

ABB witnessed several other incidents, including one when Alvarez Romero 

almost ran into ABB while trying to hit her mother. ABB also described Alvarez 

Romero’s disturbing behavior toward ABB and PDCB. For example, he forced

ABB to stay up for hours past her bedtime as punishment for doing poorly on a

school assignment; he locked PDCB in the car while shopping when she wouldn’t 

stop crying that she wanted her mother; and he took the children with him to buy 

drugs (which he used in their presence) and drove with the children while under 

the influence. 

Alvarez Romero denied all allegations of abuse. He pointed out that 

Gajardo Bahamonde filed a petition for a restraining order in Chile but then 

recanted it, which he said shows she has a history of making false allegations. But 

Gajardo Bahamonde testified that she recanted the petition because Alvarez 

Romero threatened her. And her testimony was corroborated by the recantation 

report which noted that a third party also reported concerns about Gajardo

Bahamonde’s safety and recommended that the Family Court be informed about 

the possible threat to the children’s safety. In light of this evidence, the district 

court found Alvarez Romero’s claims that he never abused the mother of his 

children and that she falsified the allegations of abuse not to be credible. 

The couple separated sometime after PDCB was born. Alvarez Romero says 

he maintained contact with the children following the separation and saw them 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 4 of 27
5

every weekend, including during his eight-month stay in a drug rehabilitation 

center. In contrast, Gajardo Bahamonde and Loyola say the children did not have

regular contact with their father. In fact, the children’s therapy notes indicate that 

they attempted to contact him during his stay in rehabilitation but that he did not 

respond. And, as Alvarez Romero acknowledged, in 2016 and 2017, he was 

subject to at least three protective orders that prohibited him from seeing the 

children. When asked how he saw the children every weekend when those orders 

were in place, Alvarez Romero did not provide a clear answer. Loyola also 

testified that Alvarez Romero “[h]ardly ever” saw the girls during that time. In 

light of these inconsistencies, the district court did not find Alvarez Romero’s 

testimony about his constant contact with his children to be credible. 

Following the separation, Gajardo Bahamonde lived with the children in 

abject poverty. Gajardo Bahamonde and ABB testified that they had to sell baked 

goods and their clothes to afford food, even though Alvarez Romero had a job. 

The children’s mental health reports corroborated that testimony. Alvarez Romero 

did, though, keep the children on his health insurance and paid for their school. 

In December 2017, Alvarez Romero told Gajardo Bahamonde he wanted to 

take the children to visit his mother in the United States, during which time they 

would also have the opportunity to visit Disney World. Gajardo Bahamonde 

consented to the trip, based on her belief that the children would be under the care 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 5 of 27
6

of their grandmother. She signed a travel authorization form allowing the children 

to travel to the United States from December 2017 to March 2018. 

Gajardo Bahamonde testified that in January 2018, Alvarez Romero told her 

he would not be returning the children to Chile and that if she ever wanted to see 

them again, she would have to come join them in the United States. Alvarez 

Romero denies ever saying this. But that month, he got a full-time job in the 

United States, bought a car, and enrolled ABB in school and PDCB in daycare. He 

says this was all just part of their visit to the United States. 

After she learned that Alvarez Romero enrolled the daughters in school and 

daycare in the United States, Gajardo Bahamonde left her job in Chile and sold 

possessions in order to pay for a ticket to travel to Alvarez Romero’s mother’s 

home in Florida in February 2018 to be with the children. Two months later, 

Gajardo Bahamonde moved out and took PDCB with her because, she says, 

Alvarez Romero began sexually harassing her and verbally and physically abusing 

her in front of the children. ABB testified that she saw Alvarez Romero abuse 

Gajardo Bahamonde while she was living with them in Florida. Gajardo 

Bahamonde also described an incident when Alvarez Romero pushed her while she 

was at work, prompting a co-worker to call the police. Gajardo Bahamonde’s 

testimony about that incident is supported by a police report. Gajardo Bahamonde 

filed for a domestic violence protection order in Florida after that incident. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 6 of 27
7

Initially, ABB stayed with her grandmother and father. But after her 

grandmother went back to Chile, ABB’s living situation worsened. ABB testified 

that she started missing a lot of school, there was almost no furniture in the home 

they stayed in, she was alone in the home for most of the day, and was left without 

food or a phone. Her mother came and took ABB to live with her after ABB called 

upset that she was stuck alone in the house with no food while Alvarez Romero 

was at work. 

The Florida court scheduled two hearings about Gajardo Bahamonde’s 

petition for a protective order. Alvarez Romero did not appear and instead 

returned to Chile. After Alvarez Romero failed to appear at the first hearing and 

returned to Chile, Gajardo Bahamonde moved to Georgia. The petition was 

dismissed for failure to appear. Gajardo Bahamonde did not further pursue the 

protective order after Alvarez Romero left the United States because she knew he 

could not return. 

When Alvarez Romero returned to Chile, he took the children’s passports 

with him. Initially, he remained in contact with ABB. They spoke about planning 

a trip for the children to return to Chile. Gajardo Bahamonde repeatedly asked 

Alvarez Romero to return the passports but he never did. 

After October 2018, there was no further direct communication between 

Alvarez Romero and the children. Alvarez Romero says this is because Gajardo 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 7 of 27
8

Bahamonde prevented the children from talking to him and blocked his family on 

social media. Gajardo Bahamonde denies this and says she blocked Alvarez 

Romero from her own social media pages but never prevented him from 

communicating with the children.

Alvarez Romero’s mother testified that she and all her family were blocked 

from speaking with the children on WhatsApp, the messaging platform they used, 

and other platforms after Alvarez Romero returned to Chile. ABB and Gajardo 

Bahamonde testified, to the contrary, that ABB continued to communicate with her 

father’s family in Chile. ABB says her mother never prevented her from speaking 

with any of her family members, including her father. ABB received a copy of her 

grandfather’s obituary from Alvarez Romero’s family after Alvarez Romero 

returned to Chile. 

Gajardo Bahamonde and the children moved to Georgia in November 2018. 

Since then, the children have lived in one home and attended the appropriate 

schools. The children’s teachers testified that both children are excelling at school 

and, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, participated in a number of extracurricular 

activities. The children get along with each other and have close friends at school 

and in their neighborhood. They are also close with Loyola, their half-brother,

who visits from Alabama every few weeks. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 8 of 27
9

Gajardo Bahamonde and the children’s visas are expired. An immigration

attorney, who presented expert testimony as to immigration law matters, advised 

that Gajardo Bahamonde is not under any threat of removal and that she has three 

options for regularizing her status.

B. Procedural Background

In June 2020, Alvarez Romero filed an ICARA petition, claiming that, as of 

November 2018, Gajardo Bahamonde wrongfully retained the couple’s two minor 

children, ABB and PDCB, in the United States, at the time 14 and 7 years old, 

respectively. In August 2020, the parties presented five issues for the district court 

to determine, three of which are relevant to this appeal: (1) whether the children 

will face a grave risk of harm if returned to Alvarez Romero in Chile; (2) whether 

the elder child, ABB, is mature enough to object to her return to Chile and whether 

she has sufficiently done so; and (3) whether the children are well-settled in the 

United States. The district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on these 

issues. 

Because Gajardo Bahamonde sought to rely on the mature child exception as 

to ABB, the district court interviewed ABB in chambers. The district court first 

spoke to ABB alone and provided a summary to the parties. During that interview, 

ABB explained that she felt more safe, secure, and stable with her mother in the 

United States because, while here, she does not fear that Alvarez Romero, her 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 9 of 27
10

father, will attack her mother. Next, the district court asked ABB questions the 

parties submitted in advance. The parties could not directly cross-examine ABB, 

but they listened to the district court interview her over the phone and were 

permitted to submit follow-up questions. Neither party submitted any follow-up 

questions. 

During that hearing, ABB objected to returning to Chile. At the time of the 

hearing, ABB was 14 years old. She was doing well at school and the record does 

not indicate that she had any kind of difficulties adjusting to life in the United 

States. She stated that she wanted to stay in the United States because her life in 

Chile was unstable. In Chile, she lived in poverty, frequently moved, and was 

constantly in fear that Alvarez Romero would find them and hurt her mother. 

Without prompting, ABB described a number of instances where she saw her 

father beat her mother, including some incidents her mother did not know ABB 

witnessed. For example, she described an incident when her father threw boiling 

water on her mother while she was cooking, at which point ABB called the police. 

ABB, her mother, her sister, and her half-brother then had to live in a hotel to stay 

safe from her father. She recalled watching her father purchase and consume drugs 

in her presence. She also recalled several interactions with the police in Chile 

when they responded to Alvarez Romero’s violent outbursts. ABB also testified 

that she witnessed her father hit her half-brother, giving him a black eye. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 10 of 27
11

II. 

When considering an appeal from an order denying a petition for return of a 

child under the Hague Convention, we review de novo the district court’s 

interpretation and application of the Hague Convention and review its factual 

findings for clear error. Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos, 950 F.3d 1352, 1357–

58 (11th Cir. 2020). 

Alvarez Romero first argues that ABB should not have been allowed to 

testify on substantive issues, such as Alvarez Romero’s treatment of Gajardo 

Bahamonde, other than her particular objections to returning to Chile. Next, he 

argues that the district court erred in considering the well settled defense because, 

he says, Gajardo Bahamonde concealed the location of the children. Finally, he 

says that the district court’s factual findings in support of its conclusions that the 

mature child exception applied, that the children were well-settled in the United 

States, and that the children faced a grave risk of harm if returned to Chile were 

clearly erroneous. Separately, Alvarez Romero says the district court abused its 

discretion when it denied his request for a transcript from an ex parte hearing 

regarding Gajardo Bahamonde’s request to permit her counsel to withdraw from 

the case. We address each argument in turn. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 11 of 27
12

A. The District Court Was Entitled to Consider ABB’s Testimony on Issues 

Besides the Mature Child Exception 

Alvarez Romero argues that ABB could only testify about her objections to 

returning to Chile because “the Hague Convention does not authorize the Court to 

interview a child or any other witness in chambers, without the opportunity for 

cross-examination, on substantive issues in the case.” Instead, he says a court may 

only interview a child to determine whether the mature child exception applies. 

Alvarez Romero is mistaken about both the record and the law in this regard. 

First, Alvarez Romero’s complaint that he did not have an opportunity to 

cross-examine ABB is misplaced. Alvarez Romero insisted that ABB not appear 

in court and instead be interviewed in chambers. And he submitted numerous 

questions for the district court to ask ABB, which it did. Alvarez Romero listened 

as the district court posed his questions as well as those submitted by Gajardo 

Bahamonde. He was then afforded the opportunity to submit any follow up 

questions to the district court to pose to ABB in chambers. He chose not to. 

Alvarez Romero was also afforded the opportunity to submit evidence to rebut 

ABB’s testimony; he did so, and the district court admitted it into evidence. 

Alvarez Romero offers no argument as to what precisely he was denied the 

opportunity to ask or introduce through a process designed to protect his daughter 

from being directly questioned by her parents about her relationships with her 

parents. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 12 of 27
13

Second, contrary to Alvarez Romero’s contentions, courts regularly rely on 

the child’s testimony in Hague Convention cases for issues besides the mature 

child exception, including when determining whether the child would face a grave 

risk of harm if returned. See Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 166 (2d Cir. 2001) 

(“[I]f a child’s testimony is germane to the question of whether a grave risk of 

harm exists upon repatriation, a court may take it into account.”); see also

Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280, 286–87 (3d Cir. 2006) (relying on child’s 

testimony to help determine her habitual residence). There is no prohibition on 

looking to a child’s testimony for issues besides the mature child exception, nor is 

there any need for an affirmative authorization from the Hague Convention to do 

so. 

The only support Alvarez Romero points to for the legal proposition that 

children can testify only about their objections to returning to their country of 

habitual residence are three unpublished district court decisions. The text of 

ICARA and the Hague Convention contain no such limitation. See 22 U.S.C. §§

9001–9010; Hague Convention, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670. And none of 

the cases Alvarez Romero cited indicate that there is any need for affirmative 

authorization by the Convention to consider a child’s testimony about other matters 

relevant to a Hague Convention case. Instead, the district courts in those cases did 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 13 of 27
14

not indicate whether the child’s testimony was limited to the mature child 

exception.1

 

Here, the district court determined that ABB’s testimony about witnessing 

many instances of Alvarez Romero beating and abusing her mother, as well as 

Alvarez Romero’s disturbing behavior toward ABB and her sister, was relevant to 

whether the children faced a grave risk of harm if returned to Chile. The district 

court did not abuse its discretion in considering this relevant evidence. 

B. The District Court Did Not Err in Crediting ABB’s Testimony

Alvarez Romero next argues that the district court made an erroneous factual 

finding when it credited ABB’s testimony. This argument fails as well. 

“In an action tried without a jury, findings of fact, whether based on oral or 

other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing 

court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ 

credibility.” Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A, 898 F.3d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 

2018) (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted). “We give even greater 

deference to factfindings of the district court that are based on determinations of 

1 See Tomynets v. Koulik, 2017 WL 9401110, at *8–9 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2017) (unpublished)

(noting that child testified as to her experiences at school, with extracurriculars, and with her 

mother); Dalsgaard v. Montoya, 2011 WL 5037223, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2011)

(unpublished) (describing in camera interview of child in chambers about her desire to remain in 

the United States); Leites v. Mendiburu, 2008 WL 114954, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2008)

(unpublished) (same). 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 14 of 27
15

the credibility of witnesses.” Berenguela-Alvarado, 950 F.3d at 1357–58 

(quotation marks omitted). We will not displace the district court’s factual 

findings when its account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, 

even if we would have weighed the evidence differently and even where there may 

be inconsistencies in the record. Seaman v. Peterson, 766 F.3d 1252, 1261 (11th 

Cir. 2014). 

Alvarez Romero has not shown that the district court’s determination that 

ABB was credible was clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence supports the 

district court’s credibility finding. ABB’s testimony about Alvarez Romero’s 

abuse was consistent with that of Gajardo Bahamonde’s as well as that of Loyola’s

testimony. ABB’s testimony about her strained relationship with her father was 

also corroborated by records evidencing Alvarez Romero’s extended stay in a drug 

rehabilitation facility and the therapy notes from ABB’s court-mandated mental 

health treatment. And her testimony that she stayed in touch with Alvarez 

Romero’s family after he returned to Chile is corroborated by Gajardo 

Bahamonde’s testimony and the fact that ABB received a copy of her grandfather’s 

obituary from Alvarez Romero’s family following Alvarez Romero’s return to 

Chile. 

The purported inconsistencies Alvarez Romero points to are either not, in 

fact, inconsistencies, or are so minor that they cannot serve as the basis for 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 15 of 27
16

overturning the district court’s findings of fact. First, Alvarez Romero claims that 

ABB’s testimony that she was hungry and homeless in Chile after her parents 

separated is contrary to evidence he submitted that he kept the children on his 

health insurance and paid for their schooling. However, there is nothing 

inconsistent in saying that the children and their mother did not have money for 

housing or food even while the children attended school and had health insurance. 

Next, Alvarez Romero says that ABB could not have witnessed him physically 

abusing Gajardo Bahamonde in Florida as that incident occurred at work, where 

she could not have been present. But it is not clear from the record whether ABB 

was describing the incident that occurred at work or a different incident that also 

occurred in Florida. Indeed, ABB testified that because they were in public, 

Alvarez Romero only “yell[ed]” at Gajardo Bahamonde and did not strike her, 

suggesting that ABB was testifying to a different instance of abuse. The fact that 

ABB says she witnessed a separate incident of abuse is hardly an indication that 

her testimony is not credible. 

Finally, Alvarez Romero points out that ABB’s testimony that she did not 

recall communicating with her father after he returned to Chile is not consistent 

with audio recordings he produced of conversations they had over WhatsApp. But 

the fact that ABB may have forgotten a couple of conversations over WhatsApp is 

an inconsistency that does not dispel the notion that she and her father were not 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 16 of 27
17

communicating frequently after he left the United States. And this discrepancy, 

alone, is certainly not sufficient for Alvarez Romero to show that the district court 

clearly erred in crediting her testimony. 

C. The District Court Did Not Err in Finding the Mature Child Exception 

Applied to ABB

Alvarez Romero contends that the district court improperly applied the 

mature child exception to ABB. The mature child exception is one of several 

affirmative defenses a parent can assert to prevent return of the child under the 

Hague Convention. Hague Convention Art. 13 (“The judicial or administrative 

authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child 

objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it 

is appropriate to take account of its views.”). The burden is on the retaining parent 

to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this exception applies. 22 

U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B). 

Courts have relied primarily on three considerations in determining when 

this exception applies: (1) whether the child is sufficiently mature; (2) whether the 

child has a particularized objection to being repatriated; and (3) whether the 

objection is the product of undue influence. See Colon v. Mejia Montufar, 470 F. 

Supp. 3d 1280, 1295 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (citing Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 499 

F.3d 259, 279 (3d Cir. 2007)). 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 17 of 27
18

As to the first factor, courts have looked to the child’s age, ability to express 

mixed feelings, and to plan past obstacles as indications of maturity. Id. at 1296. 

Alvarez Romero says the district court relied solely on ABB’s age in finding that 

she was sufficiently mature, but that assertion is not supported by the record. The 

district court considered ABB’s age (she was fourteen years old at the time), the 

fact that she was able to express some positive feelings about life in Chile, her 

ability to provide detailed answers demonstrating an understanding of her situation, 

and the testimony of her teacher in finding that she was sufficiently mature. 

In determining whether a child has particular objections to repatriation, 

courts consider whether the child is expressing merely a preference against return 

or is “affirmatively objecting to returning to one country—when living in that 

country would be unacceptable.” Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F.3d 466, 477 (5th Cir. 

2016). Alvarez Romero claims that ABB expressed a mere preference to stay in 

the United States, but he does not support this claim with references to the record. 

An actual review of the record shows that ABB provided lengthy and detailed 

particularized objections to being repatriated to Chile based on her father’s 

constant verbal and physical abuse of her mother. 

Alvarez Romero also insists that ABB’s testimony could only be the product 

of Gajardo Bahamonde’s undue influence. When considering whether a child’s 

objection is the product of undue influence, courts place great weight on whether 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 18 of 27
19

the objection is based on the child’s firsthand experiences. Colon, 470 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1298 (collecting cases). Unquestionably, ABB’s objections were based on her 

firsthand experiences. She described witnessing numerous incidents of Alvarez 

Romero physically and verbally abusing her mother, going hungry and homeless 

when Alvarez Romero cut off her mother financially, observing Alvarez Romero 

take drugs, and being subject to his harsh discipline. 

Alvarez Romero places great weight on the fact that ABB referred to him by 

his first name during her testimony. But there is no evidence in the record that 

Gajardo Bahamonde ever instructed ABB to refer to him that way. In contrast, the 

record is replete with evidence of his domestic abuse, drug use, and negligent 

parenting, all of which would reasonably lead a child to have a distant relationship 

with a parent. The district court did not err in applying the mature child exception 

to ABB. 

D. The Children Are Well-Settled in the United States

i. The District Court Properly Considered the Well-Settled Defense 

When a Hague Convention petition is filed more than a year after a child is 

retained, the retaining parent can assert the well-settled defense. Hague 

Convention Art. 12 (noting that the child must still be returned if the petition is 

filed after one year “unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 19 of 27
20

new environment.”) The retaining parent must establish that the child is wellsettled by a preponderance of the evidence. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B). 

It is undisputed that Alvarez Romero filed the instant petition more than one 

year after Gajardo Bahamonde and the children remained in the United States. But 

Alvarez Romero complains that the district court should not have considered the 

well-settled defense because he says Gajardo Bahamonde concealed the children’s 

location from him. Alvarez Romero’s argument fails on both the facts and the law. 

As a factual matter, the district court determined that Gajardo Bahamonde 

did not conceal the children’s whereabouts from Alvarez Romero. She moved 

only once (from Florida to Georgia), and since moving to Georgia the children 

have attended the same school, lived in the same house, and maintained contact 

with Alvarez Romero’s family. Absent from the record is any indication that 

Alvarez Romero attempted to contact his children and determine their 

whereabouts. There is no evidence that Gajardo Bahamonde ever lied about the 

children’s whereabouts or refused to answer Alvarez Romero’s inquiries. While 

she does not appear to have affirmatively informed Alvarez Romero of their 

whereabouts, that is different from active concealment. There is no clear error in 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 20 of 27
21

the district court’s factual finding that Gajardo Bahamonde did not conceal the 

children from Alvarez Romero.2

And even if the record indicated that Gajardo Bahamonde had concealed the 

location of her children, that alone would not prevent her from asserting the wellsettled defense. As the Supreme Court held in Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 

U.S. 1, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014), concealment does not equitably toll the one-year 

deadline for a parent to file a petition and preclude the retaining parent from 

asserting the well-settled defense. Id. at 4, 134 S. Ct. at 1228. While the Supreme 

Court noted that, as a factual matter, “steps taken to promote concealment can also 

prevent the stable attachments” that lead to a child being well-settled in a new 

country, that does not prohibit the retaining parent from asserting the defense. Id.

at 17, 134 S. Ct. at 1236. Therefore, the district court properly considered the 

well-settled defense here. 

ii. The Well-Settled Defense Applies to ABB and PDCB 

Alvarez Romero argues that the district court’s factual findings do not 

support its ruling that the children are well-settled in the United States.3

 In this 

2 Further, the record reflects that Alvarez Romero was delayed in filing his petition not because 

of any alleged concealment, but because of a protracted dispute he had with the Chilean Central 

Authority in starting the petition process. 

3 Alvarez Romero also says he is challenging the district court’s findings of fact, but he does not 

appear to dispute the facts. He only states that the facts were insufficient to support a finding 

that the children were well-settled. We construe this assertion as a challenge to the district 

court’s applications of the law to the facts, not its findings of fact. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 21 of 27
22

circuit, a child is well settled for purposes of the Hague Convention “when a 

preponderance of the evidence shows that the child has significant connections to 

their new home that indicate that the child has developed a stable, permanent, and 

nontransitory life in their new country to such a degree that return would be to the 

child’s detriment.” Fernandez v. Bailey, 909 F.3d 353, 361 (11th Cir. 2018). We 

review the district court’s application of the well-settled defense for abuse of 

discretion. Id. at 363. Courts look to how frequently children move around within 

their new country, whether they attend extracurricular and community activities, 

and whether they regularly attend school when determining whether they are wellsettled. Lozano, 572 U.S. at 17, 134 S. Ct. at 1236 (collecting cases). 

The children have been living in the United States since December 2017, 

when Alvarez Romero brought them here. They have been enrolled in school in 

the United States since January 2018, when he first enrolled them. They have 

changed school districts only once—when they moved to Georgia in November 

2018. Both children are doing well in school, as evidenced by their teachers’ 

testimony and various awards they have received. Before the onset of the Covid19 pandemic, both children were involved in numerous extracurricular activities, 

including music lessons, skating, swimming, and soccer. They have close 

friendships at school and in their neighborhood. They also spend time with their 

half-brother, who visits regularly from Alabama. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 22 of 27
23

The district court noted that Gajardo Bahamonde is not a homeowner, does 

not appear to have an independent source of income, and is currently unmarried. 

But those factors alone are not dispositive in determining the stability of the 

children’s lives in the United States. In addition, Gajardo Bahamonde is engaged 

to be married, and she and the children live with her fiancé. 

We also note that Gajardo Bahamonde appears to have more support in the 

United States than she did in Chile. Whereas Alvarez Romero left her and the 

children to fend for themselves without housing or money for food, in the United 

States the children have stable housing and can spend their time on schoolwork and 

extracurricular activities rather than selling clothes and baked goods to get by. 

Alvarez Romero places great weight on the fact that Gajardo Bahamonde 

and the children are currently not in lawful immigration status, a situation he 

created by leaving the children in the United States without their passports. But 

expert testimony indicated that Gajardo Bahamonde and the children are not under 

immediate threat of removal. Notably, the threat of removal is even more remote 

now, after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) revised its enforcement 

priorities. See Memorandum from Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director ICE, Interim 

Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities (2021), 

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigrationenforcement_interim-guidance.pdf. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 23 of 27
24

E. The Children Would Face a Grave Risk of Harm if Returned to Chile 

The Hague Convention states that a child does not have to be returned 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.” Hague 

Convention Art. 13(b). The retaining parent must show that the child faces a grave 

risk of harm by clear and convincing evidence. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A). 

“[S]ufficiently serious threats and violence directed against a parent can . . . pose a 

grave risk of harm to a child.” Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005, 1010 (11th 

Cir. 2016). 

The record clearly establishes that ABB and PDCB would face a grave risk 

of harm if returned to Chile. For years, Alvarez Romero physically and verbally 

abused Gajardo Bahamonde, including beating her so severely that she miscarried 

and breaking her ribs and nose. The children witnessed numerous incidents of 

abuse, to the extent that they underwent court-mandated mental health treatment. 

And when Gajardo Bahamonde was finally able to leave this abusive relationship, 

Alvarez Romero left her and their children homeless and hungry. Alvarez Romero 

abused drugs while caring for his children, including in their presence. 

Alvarez Romero challenges the district court’s factual findings. He argues 

that the district court should have credited his and his mother’s testimony denying 

abuse instead of crediting Gajardo Bahamonde, ABB, and Loyola’s testimony 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 24 of 27
25

describing his abuse and other disturbing behavior. But Alvarez Romero again 

fails to show that the district court’s credibility determinations were clearly 

erroneous. Alvarez Romero says that the district court did not give enough weight 

to the fact that Gajardo Bahamonde’s domestic violence petition against him in the 

United States was denied. That argument is patently misleading as the petition was 

dismissed (not denied) after Alvarez Romero fled to Chile rather than appear 

before the Florida court. He also says that her allegations that he sexually abused 

her in the United States are not credible because they went to Disney World 

together. That argument is a non sequitur.4 

Alvarez Romero also insists that because Gajardo Bahamonde recanted a 

petition for a restraining order in Chile, this shows her allegations of abuse are all 

false. But Gajardo Bahamonde testified that she only recanted the petition after 

Alvarez Romero threatened her. And even in the report reflecting the recantation, 

there is an indication that a third party expressed concerns for Gajardo Bahamonde 

and the children’s safety and advised that the Family Court be informed of their 

situation. We see no basis for displacing the district court’s findings that the 

testimony that Alvarez Romero abused Gajardo Bahamonde for years was credible 

and his denials were not credible. 

4 Alvarez Romero also repeats his contention that the children could not have been hungry and 

homeless in Chile because he paid for their school and health insurance. Again, school and 

health insurance do not provide shelter and food. There is no inconsistency there. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 25 of 27
26

We also note that the record reflects other inconsistencies in Alvarez 

Romero’s statements that support an adverse credibility finding against him. For 

example, he gave conflicting testimony as to whether he owned the company that 

he claims to have taken a leave of absence from when he took the children to the 

United States. He also said that as of December 2019, he did not know where his 

children were. But his own expert witness stated that Alvarez Romero knew their 

address in Georgia as early as November 2019. 

F. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Alvarez 

Romero’s Request to Obtain Transcripts from the Ex Parte Hearing About 

Gajardo Bahamonde’s Attorney’s Motion to Withdraw 

Finally, we address Alvarez Romero’s challenge to the district court’s denial 

of his request to obtain transcripts from the ex parte hearing where the district 

court considered Gajardo Bahamonde’s motion to permit her counsel to withdraw. 

Alvarez Romero takes issue with a parenthetical observation the district 

court included in a pretrial memorandum, noting that Gajardo Bahamonde’s fiancé 

appeared to be supportive. The district court made this observation during the ex 

parte hearing. But the district court also clarified that “will only be a factor if he 

does, in fact, testify.” The district court did make a factual finding that Gajardo 

Bahamonde’s relationship with her fiancé is stable and that the children “feel safe 

and settled” with him, but that was based on evidence in the record, including 

ABB’s testimony. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 26 of 27
27

The ex parte hearing did not address any substantive issues regarding 

Alvarez Romero’s petition. And even if Alvarez Romero were correct that it is 

relevant to the well-settled defense (he is not), we affirm the district court’s denial 

of his petition on the separate ground that both children would be subject to a grave 

risk of harm if returned to Chile. Therefore, the transcripts would not help Alvarez 

Romero even if they were relevant. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14557 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 27 of 27