Defendant did not prove that
plaintiff consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the child's removal or retention. Although the
child was removed from Mexico to the United States more than a year before the
petition was filed the child was not now settled in his new environment; nor
did she establish the Agrave risk exception. While defendant alleged
that she was fearful to return to Mexico, she did not prove that there was a
grave risk of harm that returning the child to Mexico would either place him in
danger prior to resolution of a custody hearing or subject him to serious abuse
or neglect from plaintiff. She did not allege that plaintiff abused the child
or that the Mexican courts would be unwilling or incapable of protecting the
child during the pendency of a custody hearing, or that she would be denied due
process of law for a custody hearing in Mexico.
No comments:
Post a Comment