On Dec. 28th my wife submitted a series of pieces of "new evidence" in her constitutional appeal against the order that my son come home. She submitted three sworn statements (one by her mother, one by her father and one by a cousin), some 100 photos and some "public document" showing and establishing Sage's "legal residency" in Mexico.
When we initially saw the publication that she had submitted new evidence we weren't sure what it was or what she was trying to establish with it. Until the judge approves the admission of new evidence it is not shown to the opposing party. We are able to guess what the evidence is based on the motion that was filed with it, which we recently saw, and in which she says that: "the following evidence proves that Sage has completely and fully adapted to his current living environment and it would be cruel to alter that by returning him to the US." Adding that Sage has now been in Mexico for 2 years and 2 months -- once again perpetuating the lie that Sage has been in Mexico since October 2007 and not since June 2008 inspite of my wife filing for (and receiving) a NC driver's license in May of 2008, filing for (and receiving) a social security card in April '08, filing for (and receiving) a NC vehicle title in April '08, filing for (and receiving) a Mexican birth certificate signed by both parents at the Mexican Embassy in Raleigh, NC in May '08, opening bank accounts and taking various US domestic flights... not to mention the birthday party pictures for Sage's 1st bday in May of 2008 at our US home. It blows my mind that they keep repeating that nonsense lie since, even if it were accepted as true I still filed my Hague application in August '08 which was still well within the one year period required by Article 12 of the Hague. It also frustrates me to no end that the Mexican high courts won't call her out on that lie either and instead just disagree with the family court judge's assessment that my lying about the date of abduction, and hence being a liar, posed a grave risk to my son (grave risk for lying!? ..when I'm so obviously not even lying :burn:).
My lawyer expects the judge to throw this "new evidence" out. I half-way want him to accept it since it means I would see 100 pictures of my son (my wife claims she has no camera when I talk to her). I just don't want the accepting, or denying, of the evidence to delay these proceedings any further. I'm not worried about the effects of this evidence either way since both the lower appeals court and a higher court have both held that the adaptation clause of Article 12 cannot be used in my case since judicial proceedings commenced within one year of the abduction -- no matter how you interpret "commence" (unless you're the family court judge who interpreted "commence" as "finish" and also denied Sage's return on that basis.)
