Mexico - Child Abduction

Mexico is a renowned haven for international child abductors. It does not comply with its international obligations under the Hague Convention. Its procedures for enforcing its Hague Convention treaty obligations are weak, unpredictable and entirely ineffective.

The Centre for International Family Law Studies in Cardiff, Wales compared seven jurisdictions, including Mexico. The conclusion was that Mexico was by far the worst offender in its failure to return abducted children.

 

U.S. State Department Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for 2005

In the last report, the Department found Mexico to be noncompliant with the Convention due to systemic problems, including slow case handling, lack of progress in resolving cases, and inability to locate children.

 Mexico continues to be the destination country of the greatest number of children abducted from the United States or wrongfully retained outside the United States by parents or other relatives.  Over the recent reporting period, the Department has seen some notable improvements in the performance of the Mexican Central Authority (MCA).  The MCA forwards Hague applications to judges much more expeditiously than before; whereas previously delays of 3-6 months were common, cases are now being forwarded to the courts as early as 4-8 weeks after being received.  MCA responsiveness to inquiries from the U.S. Central Authority has also improved.  The Office of Children’s Issues is now in regular (weekly and at times daily) contact with the MCA.  Mexican authorities and judges participated in various training opportunities and judicial conferences co-sponsored by the Department of State.  This training appears to be having a positive effect.  Over the past year we have seen the highest number of court-ordered returns from Mexico to the United States of any reporting period.

Many of the problems cited in the past do persist, however.  Our greatest concern remains Mexico’s inability to locate missing children or taking parents.  In some cases, finding them takes years.  Though the MCA has begun to work more closely with the various branches of local law enforcement, including Interpol, we have not observed a substantial change in the frequency with which children are found.   Also of serious concern are lengthy court delays, especially due to the excessive use of a special Constitutional appeal process (the “amparo”), which can block Convention proceedings almost indefinitely. 

Delays are also due to the ability of Mexican appellate courts to reconsider factual determinations made by a lower court.  These case delays could be dealt with through the passage of implementing legislation incorporating Convention procedures and obligations, something that the Department of State has urged Mexico to do; we have seen no steps taken in this direction.  In addition, Mexico’s record on enforcement of judicial orders for return is mixed.  Although some mechanisms do exist to enforce court orders, they are not utilized consistently.  Finally, we continue to see Hague cases mishandled as custody cases rather than focusing on securing the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained abroad. 

We have made numerous appeals to the Mexican Government to invest greater funding and attention towards international child abduction-related issues, including strengthening the MCA, offering more training for judges, and allocating more resources for locating children.  The U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Mexico have worked closely throughout the year with Mexican officials and judges to explain roles and obligations under the Hague Convention.  Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty has repeatedly raised USG concerns over Mexico’s compliance problems with senior Mexican officials, including during the November 2004 Binational Commission meetings and during Secretary of State Rice’s first trip to Mexico in March 2005.  Mexican judges participated in Department-sponsored training and conferences, including a December 2004 Latin American Judicial Seminar, at which judges from 19 countries in the hemisphere shared experience and worked through cases studies using Hague principles.  Nevertheless, the MCA has not taken a sufficient lead in broadening the amount of training offered within its borders to judges.  While the Department is pleased at the progress seen since last year’s report, there remains considerable room for improvement.