From the 2014 State Department report:
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.
Argentina, Case Summaries:
1. In November 2009, the court ordered the return of the child. In May 2010, the appellate court denied the taking parent's (TP) appeal and upheld the return order. In August 2010, the TP filed an "extraordinary appeal" with the Argentine Supreme Court. In December 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the First Instance and Court of Appeals decisions and ordered the First Instance court to execute the return order. However, this court continues to delay the execution of the return order until the left-behind parent meets a series of conditions set by the TP related to immigration and financial support for the TP. In an effort to satisfy the TP's conditions, the Argentine government granted the TP an allowance for travel to the United States for a custody hearing and related legal fees. In 2011, the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires issued the TP a visa to attend custody hearings. The TP filed multiple requests for asylum in Argentina for the child in a separate administrative court system; one asylum request is still pending. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires have regularly requested updates from the Argentine Central Authority on court proceedings.
2. After the Hague case was assigned to a court, the case was suspended pending resolution of criminal proceedings filed by the taking parent (TP) against the left-behind parent (LBP). In June 2013, the Court of Appeals overturned the suspension of the Hague case. The TP then filed a motion to recuse the judge hearing the return case. The case was transferred to a different court, which will not render a decision until the Court of Appeals can determine whether to accept or reject the motion to recuse the judge. In October 2013, the Criminal Court of Appeals acquitted the LBP of the criminal charges. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires have regularly requested updates from the Argentine Central Authority on the Hague court proceedings.
3. In March 2011, a public defender submitted the left-behind parent's (LBP) Hague application to a district court in the Buenos Aires province. In August 2011, the LBP requested that the Argentine Central Authority (ACA) provide a new public defender after the taking parent (TP) relocated with the children to a different jurisdiction. In September 2011, the TP received notification of the Hague application and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. For over a year, the Pilar and San Isidro courts disputed what district had jurisdiction over the case. After the Court of Appeals decided Pilar Family Court had jurisdiction over the case, the Pilar Family Court rejected the petition for return in December 2012. In June 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the family court and ordered the return of the children. In July 2013, the TP filed an "extraordinary appeal" with the Argentine Supreme Court for the Province of Buenos Aires, and in December 2013, the court upheld the June 2013. However, litigation remains ongoing. The U.S. Central Authority and U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires have regularly requested updates from the ACA on court proceedings.