Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

testimonycredibility

Related Cases

Valenzuela v. Michel

Facts

Steve Michel and Blanca Reyes Valenzuela lived together in Nogales, Mexico, and had twin daughters born in 2008. In 2009, they agreed that Steve would move to Arizona to avoid border crossings for work, intending to keep the twins in the U.S. for better education and medical care. The twins split their time between both parents until their relationship soured in 2010, leading to a custody dispute when Steve decided not to return the children to Blanca after a visit.

In late 2006, Steve Michel and Blanca Reyes Valenzuela chose to live together in Nogales, Mexico. The twins were born in 2008. According to Steve's undisputed testimony, the couple lived together in Nogales, Mexico. The couple agreed in 2009 that to avoid having to cross the border for work, Steve should move to the Arizona side. They agreed to 'set a pattern to keep [the twins] in the United States' in order to take advantage of education, medical help and government support in the United States.

Issue

Whether the children were habitually resident in Mexico or the United States at the time of their retention by the father, and whether the Hague Convention applied.

The question is whether the children were habitually resident in Mexico, the United States, or both, at the time of their retention.

Rule

The court applied the principle that 'habitual residence' is determined by the last shared, settled intent of the parents, requiring a shared intent to abandon the prior habitual residence, an actual change in geography, and an appreciable period of time.

In the Ninth Circuit, we look for the last shared, settled intent of the parents in an attempt to determine which country is the 'locus of the children's family and social development.' Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1084.

Analysis

The court found that the district court's determination of habitual residence was supported by credible testimony from Steve, which indicated a shared intent to abandon Mexico. The court noted that the children had spent the majority of their time in the U.S. and that the mother's testimony was inconsistent and undermined her credibility. The court affirmed that the Convention did not apply due to the established intent to change the children's habitual residence.

The district court based its findings of fact primarily on three key credibility determinations. First, it found that Steve's version of the facts was credible. Second, it found that Blanca's account was not consistent with her earlier statement to the social worker about how long the twins were living in the United States. Finally, it found that Blanca's witnesses either lacked independent foundation for their testimony or were being audibly coached while they were testifying, possibly by Blanca herself.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the father was not required to return the children to Mexico under the Hague Convention.

The court therefore adopted Steve's testimony in its findings of fact with occasional reliance on the social worker's testimony. These credibility determinations are supported by the record and were not clear error.

Who won?

Steve Michel prevailed in the case because the court found his testimony credible and supported by evidence, while the mother's credibility was undermined.

The district court found Steve's testimony to be more credible, noting that Blanca seemed to be coaching her witnesses.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sebastian-Sebastian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Gemechu v. Ashcroft

Taha v. Ashcroft

United States v. Habteyes

Orellana v. Barr