Efren Garcia Urrutia filed a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) seeking the return of his son, O.R.G.A., from the United States to Mexico. The child's mother, Francis Diosmar Arena Flores, had brought the child to North Carolina in September 2023 following the couple's separation. Urrutia alleged the removal was wrongful because he held custody rights under a consent order issued by a Mexican family court. Flores moved to dismiss, arguing Urrutia lacked custody rights and asserting two affirmative defenses: that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm and that the child was well-settled in North Carolina. The district court held a hearing where Flores presented no evidence, yet the court issued an order denying the petition based solely on Flores' proposed findings regarding the affirmative defenses, without resolving the underlying custody question.
The Fourth Circuit applied a clear error standard to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The court identified two primary errors in the district court's analysis. First, regarding custody rights, the district court incorrectly suggested that American common law contract principles should apply to determine if the Mexican consent order granted Urrutia custody. The appellate court clarified that custody rights under the Hague Convention are determined by the law of the child's habitual residence—in this case, Mexican law. Second, regarding the affirmative defenses, the court found the district court's conclusion that the child was well-settled and not at grave risk lacked evidentiary support. The record showed that while the district court had promised Flores a day to present evidence, it ruled on the defenses based only on her proposed findings without hearing testimony or evidence. The court emphasized that without evidence, the district court could not properly adjudicate the defenses, and the premature order denied Flores the opportunity to present her case.
The district court's order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the lower court must apply Mexican law to determine whether Urrutia holds custody rights under the consent order. Additionally, the court must conduct evidentiary proceedings to allow both parties to present evidence regarding the affirmative defenses of grave risk and well-settled status before making a final determination on the return of the child.