Contact Us
HOME INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW STRATEGIC INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE INTERNATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY
International Child Custody
Country-by-Country Information About Child Abduction and Divorce
(Scroll down to find country)
Peru: Family Law

Peru & Child Abduction

From the State Department's annual report on International Child Abduction

Peru demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance in 2015 because:

          -Thirty percent or more of the total abduction cases are unresolved abduction cases as defined by the Act; and

          -The judicial authority regularly failed to implement and comply with the provisions of the Convention.

The Convention is in force between the United States and Peru.

To improve the resolution of abduction cases in Peru, the Department recommends that the United States:

          -Promote training with judicial and administrative authorities on the effective handling of international parental child abduction cases;

          -Through embassy public affairs and consular sections, promote the resolution of international parental child abduction cases with public diplomacy and outreach activities; and

          -Hold bilateral meetings with Peruvian government officials to encourage Peru to comply with its obligations under the Convention.

Peru's relevant statistics regarding Abduction & Access cases can be seen below:

---------

Peru & Child Abduction: Excerpts from the 2013 & 2014 State Department Reports on Compliance with the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction

The Office of Children's Issues of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs has recently released the annual report on Hague Convention compliance. The report details various issues of non-compliance with member countries.

Unresolved Return Applications

As of December 31, 2012, the U.S. Central Authority (USCA) had 112 applications for return that remained open and active for more than 18 months after the date of filing with the relevant foreign central authority in the 18 countries listed below. The following section describes each unresolved case and the actions taken by the USCA to resolve them. The actions taken by other authorities are stated below, as reported to the USCA by the relevant entity.

2013 Case Summaries: Peru

1.  A return order was issued in June 2011, the taking parent appealed the decision, and a lengthy appeals process remains underway. In May 2012, the appeal was sent to the Superior Court for review, and in June 2012, the Superior Court sent the case to the district attorney's office for review and opinion. In August 2012, the case was again sent back to the original appellate court, and a new hearing was scheduled for January 2013. The U.S. Central Authority and the U.S. Embassy in Lima continue to regularly request updates on court proceedings.

2.  In December 2009, the court denied the return. The left-behind parent (LBP) appealed. In May 2010, the appellate judge ordered the taking parent (TP) and child to undergo psychological evaluation. In July 2010, the Superior Court vacated the lower court's denial, but did not order the return. After several months of deliberation, the Peruvian Central Authority declined to represent the LBP and pledged to provide assistance through the Ministry of Justice. Because the LBP procured a private attorney during the delay, the Ministry of Justice determined the LBP was able to furnish his own attorney and did not represent the LBP. In August 2011, the case was remanded to the Family Court of Lima for a decision. In May 2012, the court ordered new psychological evaluations of the LBP. However, there was lengthy discussion regarding the type of evaluation that would be acceptable to the court. In October 2012, the court determined that a psychological evaluation and home study provided by a U.S. social service provider would be acceptable. At the end of the reporting period, the LBP was making arrangements for the home study and psychological evaluation.

3.  The case was forwarded to the Peruvian Central Authority in April 2010 and the first hearing was held in September 2010. In June 2011, a return order was issued. The taking parent (TP) appealed the decision and then dropped her appeal in March 2012. The TP and left-behind parent took several months to coordinate the logistics of the child's return, and both parents are now in agreement that the child may return to the United States.

4.  Following hearings in March and July 2010, the court ordered the child's return in October 2010. The taking parent (TP) absconded with the child. While in hiding with the child, the TP filed an appeal, and then returned with the child to their former residence. In March 2011, the court denied the appeal. The TP filed a second appeal with the Superior Court. In October 2012, the Superior Court overturned the return order. The left-behind parent has appealed the decision and hired a private attorney to represent him in the appeals process. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima have regularly requested updates from the Peruvian Central Authority on the court proceedings. No court date has yet been set.

5.  After extended deliberations in the initial series of hearings, with both the taking parent and left-behind parent (LBP) continuing to submit evidence and counter evidence, the return was denied in September 2012. The LBP appealed the ruling. The next hearing date in the appeal is scheduled in January 2013. The U.S. Central Authority and the U.S. Embassy in Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

6.  A return order was issued in July 2011. The taking parent appealed the order. The appellate court upheld the return decision in January 2012. The left-behind parent appealed the appellate decision. An evidentiary hearing in this appeal took place in mid-December 2012. The U.S. Central Authority and the U.S. Embassy in Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

Unresolved Return Applications

As of December 31, 2013, the U.S. Central Authority (USCA) had 111 applications for return that remained open and active for more than 18 months after the date of filing with the relevant foreign central authority in the countries listed below. The following section describes each unresolved case and the actions taken by the USCA to resolve. The actions taken by other authorities are also stated below, as reported to the USCA by the relevant entity.

2014 Case Summaries: Peru

1.  In December 2009, the court denied the return. In May 2010, the appellate judge ordered the taking parent and child to undergo a psychological evaluation. In July 2010, the Superior Court vacated the lower court's denial but did not order the return. The Peruvian Central Authority (PCA) declined to represent the LBP and pledged to provide assistance through the Ministry of Justice. The left-behind parent (LBP) procured a private attorney during the delay and the Ministry of Justice determined the LBP was able to furnish his own attorney. In August 2011, the case was remanded to the Family Court of Lima for a decision. In May 2012, the court ordered new psychological evaluations of the LBP. However, there was lengthy discussion regarding the type of evaluation that would be acceptable to the court. In October 2012, the court determined that a psychological evaluation and home study provided by a U.S. social service provider would be acceptable. In January 2013, the LBP submitted a psychological evaluation to the PCA. The LBP declined to submit a home study evaluation, and no decision has been reached on the appeal. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates on court proceedings.

2.  A return order was issued in July 2011. The taking parent appealed the order. The appellate court upheld the return decision in January 2012. The left-behind parent appealed the appellate decision. An evidentiary hearing in this appeal took place in December 2012 and a final hearing was held in November 2013 but a ruling has not yet been issued. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

3.  After extended deliberations in the initial series of hearings due to the continued submission of evidence and counter evidence by both the taking (TP) and left-behind (LBP) parents, the return was denied in September 2012. The LBP appealed the ruling, a subsequent hearing was held in January 2013, and the return was ordered; however, the TP requested an additional judicial review and the return order is being evaluated by a panel of three supreme court judges. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima request regular updates on the case and court proceedings.

4.  A return order was issued in June 2011, the taking parent appealed the decision, and a lengthy appeals process remains underway. In May 2012, the appeal was sent to the Superior Court for review, and in June 2012, the Superior Court sent the case to the district attorney's office for review. In August 2012, the case was again sent back to the original appellate court, and a new hearing was held in January 2013. A decision has yet to be reached. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates on court proceedings.

5.  A hearing was held in August 2012, and a return order was issued. The taking parent appealed the decision, and a hearing was held in January 2013. No decision has been reached in the appeal. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

6.  An initial hearing was held in August 2012, and a decision supporting a return was issued in January 2013. In January 2013, the taking parent appealed the decision, and a final appeal hearing is scheduled for January 2014. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

7.  A hearing was held in August 2012, and a decision supporting a return was issued in September 2013 after an extended delay. Initially the taking parent (TP) and left-behind parent considered negotiating a voluntary return agreement; however, they were not able to settle on mutually acceptable terms. In October 2013, the TP appealed the return decision, and no decision has been reached in the appeal case. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates regarding current court proceedings.

8.  After a delayed notification process, a hearing was held in January 2012 after initial hearings in December 2012 were cancelled due to a judicial strike. Additional evidence and counterevidence were submitted by both taking parent (TP) and left-behind parent (LBP) after the TP introduced abuse allegations. On November 4, 2013 the return was denied and the LBP's attorney appealed the decision on November 19, 2013. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Lima continue to regularly request updates on court proceedings. 

Our Articles
Here are some of my "international family lawyer's best tips" for clients who  continue

Here are some tips for attorneys and clients faced with   continue

International child relocation applications raise substantially different issues  continue

When comparing possible jurisdictions for international family law cases  continue

Expert testimony is frequently needed in international family law cases  continue

In Abbott v. Abbott, The U.S. Supreme Court has now issued its very first decision  continue

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and the Hague Convention  continue

An overview of the Hague Abduction Convention  continue

Additional Articles
<