Paz Gomez v. Reyes Gonzalez

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 RUBEN PAZ GOMEZ, CASE NO. C24-5645-KKE 8

Petitioner, ORDER ON RETURN OF CHILD TO 9 v. MEXICO

10 YANISLEIDY REYES GONZALEZ,

11 Respondent.

12 On March 17, 2025, the Court granted Ruben Paz Gomez’s Petition for the return of his 13 daughter, ACPR, to Mexico. Dkt. No. 71. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint proposal 14 regarding the logistics of returning ACPR to Mexico. Id. at 15. The parties submitted a joint 15 statement identifying each party’s proposal for ACPR’s return and confirming that the parties 16 could not agree on any aspect of her return. Dkt. No. 72. Having considered each party’s position 17 and the relevant law, the Court orders as follows: 18 1. ACPR shall be returned to Mexico City, Mexico by April 30, 2025. ACPR shall not 19 be removed from the Western District of Washington for any reason other than her 20 travel to Mexico in satisfaction of this Order. 21 2. ACPR will be accompanied by Respondent on her return, with Respondent purchasing 22 all required airfare. Respondent is also responsible for any other costs incurred in 23 returning to Mexico. 24 1 3. Respondent shall keep Petitioner informed of ACPR’s travel and school plans. 2 4. Until the parties reach a different agreement, or a Mexican court issues a superseding 3 order, ACPR shall remain in Respondent’s custody and Respondent shall facilitate

4 remote video visitation between ACPR and Petitioner on Sundays, Tuesdays, and 5 Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time for 10 to 30 minutes. Petitioner will initiate these 6 video calls.1 7 5. Respondent’s failure to return ACPR to Mexico in accordance with this Order may 8 result in an order from this Court directing the United States Marshals to assist in the 9 return of ACPR or for sanctions against Respondent. 10 11 Dated this 31st day of March, 2025. 12 A 13 Kymberly K. Evanson 14 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 With this provision, the Court does not improperly consider the merits of the underlying custody dispute. See Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68, 72 (2020). Rather, the Court attempts to enforce the pre-removal status quo pending 24 the adjudication of the custody dispute by Mexican courts. See id.