In re Parentage of M.V.U., 2020 IL App (1st) 191762

- Case citation and parties
In re Parentage of M.V.U., 2020 IL App (1st) 191762 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 3, 2020). Petitioner‑Appellee: Rocio Montes; Respondent‑Appellant: Jose Guadalupe Ignacio Ulloa Toscano.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the minor’s removal from Mexico to Illinois was wrongful under the Hague Convention/UCCJEA (jurisdiction/habitual residence and exercise of custody rights).
2) If removal was wrongful, whether the Article 13(b) “grave risk” exception to return applied (clear and convincing standard).

- Holding/outcome
The First District affirmed. The trial court correctly determined (on a 2‑615 ruling) that Mexico was the child’s habitual residence and Jose exercised custodial rights at removal. On the Hague petition’s merits, the court found Rocio established by clear and convincing evidence that return would subject the child to a grave risk of harm; therefore the child need not be returned.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court resolved preliminary jurisdictional issues against Rocio via a section 2‑615 ruling but proceeded to an evidentiary hearing solely on affirmative defenses. The appellate court affirmed the grave‑risk finding, emphasizing (1) the applicable burden for article 13(b) is clear and convincing evidence; (2) the trial court was entitled to credit Rocio’s testimony and corroborating affidavits describing physical abuse (an incident in which Jose allegedly choked Rocio while she held the child), repeated threats (including an alleged threat to kill if she moved to Chicago), and coercive control (preventing work and school attendance); and (3) corroboration from family witnesses and translated affidavits supported the credibility finding. The court gave deference to the trial court’s credibility and factual determinations and found the evidence showed a real risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation for the child if returned.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When litigating Hague return defenses, assemble clear, convincing and corroborated evidence: victim testimony, contemporaneous reports, witness affidavits, medical/shelter/police records, and credible translations.
- Anticipate and litigate threshold 2‑615 challenges on habitual residence and custodial exercise early; preserve the record on those issues.
- Understand appellate deference to trial credibility findings — credibility and corroboration at trial are critical.
- If domestic violence is alleged, frame evidence to show risk to the child (physical harm, psychological harm, or intolerable environment), not only to the parent.
- Prepare to rebut common Hague defenses and to show necessity of removal for child safety (safety plan, alternative protections in sending state).