Thank you all for your concern and kind words. I feel truly blessed to have the support, thoughts and prayers of so many compassionate and caring people.
Late last week we obtained a copy of the full decision of the Mexican high court. This marks the end of the seventh trial in Mexico to date.
This most recent decision was to be the final decision in the Hague case for my son’s return. However, rather than issue an actual verdict that brought the case to a close they have declared what amounts to a mistrial. This decision was not based on any argument that my wife made in opposition to Sage’s return, but rather, the result of a Mexican court principle called “suplencia de la queja” which basically translates to “expansion of the complaint” (where, in this context, my wife is the one filing the complaint against the return order.) Suplencia de la queja is a legal principle that courts can apply in cases related to children. It’s a tacit acknowledgement that none of the grievances listed in the complaint are valid, but the court can amend the compliant to add what, in its own opinion, is a valid grievance that should have been added.
The courts decision was that, during the family court trial and subsequent State level appeal, the public prosecutor did not do enough to adequately represent Sage’s interests independently of that of his parents. Hence, while not a lack of representation independent of his parents, they have declared my son’s own representation insufficient and have ordered a “do over” if you will. In doing so, Mexican courts have (shockingly I know) perverted the spirit of the Convention, and established a system where denying the return of children is the rule rather than the exception. In international abduction cases they consistently construe any procedural problems as a violation of children’s rights, and a basis for effectively denying the return of children. In this case they (officially) refused to consider any part of the nearly two foot thick case docket generated over the course of two years on the actual merits of the case in question in lieu of fixating on procedural questions that are used as a backdoor justification for enforcing the universal presumption that children abducted to Mexico are not to be returned.
While ostensibly protecting the child’s best interests by protecting their alleged procedural rights they refused to (officially) consider the substantive questions at hand in the holistic manner that any real consideration of a child’s best interests demands. In overturning two years of litigation, on little more than a technicality, they didn’t bother to (officially) consider whether the alleged procedural violation would have changed the resulting decision in any way shape or form. It seems that to Mexican courts returning a child to the United States is analogous to incarcerating a criminal in the United States. The child should not be returned (incarcerated) unless all the proper procedures are followed precisely. Because, of course no alleged criminal (abducted child) should be deprived of their freedom (returned to their home country) unless we have proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and in accordance with full due process. In the US criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty and in Mexico abducted children are presumed to be better off with their Mexican kidnappers until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt and in accordance with every procedural law imaginable.
It is no coincidence that Mexico is a world leader in child abduction or that, in spite of being a Hague Convention signatory for 20 years that has heard thousands of Convention cases, there is almost no federal case law or jurisprudence on the substantive issues of the Convention’s operation in Mexico. It would seem easier for a rich man to get into heaven than for a child to be returned from Mexico. Incompetence and ignorance (if not outright corruption) in Mexican courts has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies by independent NGO’s, the United Nations and the US Department of State for decades but, nonetheless, they have set for themselves an impossibly high standard of excellence and perfection before the high courts will even consider the merits of a Hague Convention case. Procedural problems are always found while core Convention issues are routinely pushed aside. Left behind parents are forced to walk a camel through the eye of a needle located in a foreign country before they can even get Mexican federal courts to make a decision on the merits of a Hague case and, unsurprisingly, the efforts of victimized parents almost always collapses under the spiritual, emotional and financial cost of continuing the litigation long before Mexican federal courts are satisfied that the procedures used by their state and local courts have adequately addressed all the procedural rules – with new ones being invented all the time due to the “special nature” of international cases.
Leaving aside the prior decision and the ostensible logic behind it, I have come to terms with the inescapable reality it demonstrates. Had my wife presented a valid argument that could have been used to deny my son’s return, they would have happily denied it. When no such “exception” was accredited they sent the case back to the lower courts for an extended fishing expedition until such a legal basis can be found. I don’t see how this decision can be reasonably interpreted in any other way.
