What sets us apart? We are top-tier litigators. Our clients come first, and we do everything for them. Case strategy is everything. The experience of having worked on these cases for over 20 years—and 41 years of litigation, handling more than a hundred cases involving child return and international visitation— in which we have participated as an attorney, as an expert witness, and the situations we have navigated as professionals while supporting our clients, is unparalleled.

Speed: Under the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions, it is important to file return requests promptly. Assess the child’s center of life, custody rights, whether or not there were authorizations to settle abroad, and evidence to corroborate the center of life.

International child abduction also carries criminal consequences; in Argentina, penalties range from 5 to 15 years in prison under Articles 146 and 239 of the Penal Code, which are currently applied more frequently than Law 24,270 regarding the obstruction of contact. We have had cases where three mothers were arrested for child abduction; we filed a petition and obtained an Interpol warrant for their international arrest. It is necessary to determine whether or not it is advisable to file these complaints, and if so, when to do so.

Cases of International Child Return: more than 20 years of return cases; the international return of a child does not end when a favorable judgment is obtained. Sometimes, that is when the most difficult part begins.

The problem in Argentina: when the urgency of the Convention clashes with proceedings that last for years; there is no need for strong language to point out that Argentina has a serious operational problem in this area. The official figures speak for themselves. The U.S. Department of State’s *Annual Report on International Child Abduction 2026* once again found that Argentina exhibits a “pattern of noncompliance” in the implementation of the Convention. The report itself notes that Argentine judicial authorities have not consistently implemented and complied with the Convention’s provisions and again highlights judicial delays and the lack of effective, specific procedural legislation. Argentina has been cited for noncompliance in twelve consecutive annual reports since 2015.

This does not mean that all Argentine judges rule incorrectly or that all restitutions fail. Our own experience demonstrates the contrary: we have obtained restitutions in trial courts, appellate courts, provincial high courts, and the Supreme Court. The problem arises all too often in terms of timing, appeals, enforcement, and a lack of specialization. The Convention requires expedited procedures because a delay of two, three, or six years can turn a legal victory into a human defeat.

More than twenty years working on return cases in both directions: Our experience is not limited to representing the parent seeking the child’s return. We have also defended mothers and fathers against return requests when we determined that the removal had not been unlawful, that there had been consent to the change of residence, or that one of the exceptions provided for by the Convention applied. We have an extremely high success rate in these cases, as we only take on those we believe in.

This is important. Specialization in this area does not mean “always seeking return.” It involves correctly identifying habitual residence, custody rights, consent, acquiescence, integration, the child’s opposition, grave risk, and the other circumstances that the Convention allows for consideration—without turning a return proceeding into an ordinary custody trial.

For more than two decades, we have handled cases involving the United States, France, Finland, Mexico, Nicaragua, Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Romania, China, the United Kingdom, and Russia, among other countries.

Finland: Winning at three levels of appeal and waiting three and a half years: The Finland case is likely the most recent example of the time-related issue. We obtained a favorable return order at the trial court level, which was affirmed on appeal. The courts found that the child’s habitual residence was in Finland, that there had been no consent to the relocation, and that no exception justifying non-return had been established. However, the case proceeded all the way to the Supreme Court, and the child was not actually returned until December 9, 2025—after more than three and a half years of litigation. The case highlights a fundamental distinction that is sometimes overlooked: obtaining a return order and ensuring that the child actually returns are two different things. And the Convention requires both. After such a long delay in Argentina, the judge in Finland decided it was best for the girl to live in Argentina given the tremendous amount of time the case had spent there. Now Argentina will face a lawsuit for its failure to rule in a timely manner. But that will not make up for the father’s loss.

Mexico: A ruling is useless if enforcement fails: In 2024, we secured the return of two children to Mexico from the province of Entre Ríos. The case proved particularly complex during the enforcement phase. There were difficulties related to the measures necessary to facilitate the return and to the effective lifting of immigration restrictions. The court order existed, but when it came time to make the trip, obstacles arose that had to be resolved immediately. The lesson is basic but often overlooked: before transporting the child to the airport, the court, immigration authorities, documentation, authorizations, accompaniment, and the specific conditions of the return must all be coordinated. A superbly reasoned court ruling that cannot be enforced by the time of the flight is of very little use.

Nicaragua: International cooperation that worked: In 2023, we worked alongside Nicaraguan colleagues to secure the return to Argentina of two girls who had traveled with their mother for a specified period and had not returned. The case was not straightforward due to the specific nature of the jurisdiction involved. However, we found a court that correctly understood the mechanism of return and the need to resolve it decisively. The girls returned to Argentina. The case file shows the other side of the coin: when lawyers from both countries work in coordination and the requested court understands the purpose of the Convention, even difficult cases can be resolved.

France: From a six-month-old infant to children who had to be located after running away: France–Argentina cases have played a particularly important role in our practice. In Córdoba, we represented the father of a baby barely six months old who had been taken from France. The trial court denied the return, but the provincial Superior Court overturned the decision and ordered the return. Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied the appeal filed by the defendant against that ruling.

In another case, we secured the child’s return to France at the trial court level, and this decision was upheld by Chamber H of the National Civil Appeals Court. The case took nearly two years. The subsequent enforcement proceedings dramatically demonstrated the importance of taking effective measures to prevent another abduction.

We also represented the father of two children whose return to France was ordered and upheld. When the return was to be enforced, the mother disappeared with them. After approximately nine months of searching, the children were located through the coordinated efforts of Argentine agencies and were finally able to return to France.

We are currently handling a case in which the mother has an international arrest warrant issued by both Argentine and French courts. Once the girl was due to be returned—since we had won at all three levels of court—the mother abducted her daughter again, and for the past four years, the courts have been unable to locate her. This is because the judge who heard the family case did not consider there to be a risk that the mother would abduct her… a lack of experience.

These different cases have something in common: return cannot be analyzed separately from the measures intended to ensure it.

United States: Six and a Half Years for Two Girls to Return to Virginia: One of the longest cases in our practice involved two girls who were to return to Virginia. The proceedings lasted approximately six and a half years. During that period, there were allegations of abuse and violence, multiple procedural setbacks, and years without normal contact with the father. Ultimately, the children were returned, and they went back to the United States. That case reached the Argentine Supreme Court and subsequently required ensuring the effective enforcement of the decision. The delay itself illustrates the failure that can occur even when the final legal outcome is correct. In another case involving the United States, the Supreme Court even had to order the immediate enforcement of one of its own rulings that had gone unenforced at the trial court level for years.

These precedents explain why, in international child abduction cases, the procedural debate over the suspensive effect of appeals, interim measures, and enforcement is not a secondary matter. It can determine whether the Convention succeeds or fails.

Seattle: Sometimes the best outcome is a quick settlement: Not all cases need to end in years of litigation. In a case heard before a court in Quilmes, an agreement was reached for a girl to return with her mother to Seattle, leaving the U.S. courts to resolve the substantive issues.

We represented the father. The agreement made it possible to quickly reestablish the appropriate jurisdiction for addressing custody and parental responsibility, without turning the Argentine proceedings into a battle over who should permanently retain custody of the girl. The same occurred in a case involving Italy. A boy approximately one year old had been withheld in Argentina. A voluntary return was achieved within a few weeks, without the need to take the conflict all the way to the highest judicial level.

Mediation and negotiation can be extraordinarily useful when they serve to expedite the return. They become counterproductive when used simply to delay it.

We have also argued against return; experience under the Convention requires an understanding of the circumstances in which return is not appropriate. In a Germany–Argentina case handled in Mendoza, we worked alongside local attorneys in defense of the mother. The father had spent approximately one year in Argentina, looking for work and declaring his residence in the country. The precise issue at stake was whether it could subsequently be argued that the children still had their habitual residence in Germany—the basis he had cited to request their return. The opposition was successful.

In another case, we represented two sisters who were living with their father in the province of Buenos Aires, while their mother sought their return to Spain. The girls are living happily with their father.

In another Spain–Argentina case, it was established that the father had authorized the girl’s change of residence to Argentina. The case concluded with agreements regarding parental responsibility and international visitation.

And in a case involving Canada, we initially obtained a decision against return. The Court of Appeals subsequently overturned the ruling, and the parties finally reached an agreement to arrange for the return.

These cases serve as a reminder that the Convention protects against wrongful removal or retention, not against any international change of residence that a parent may later find objectionable.

China and the forum of necessity: when no court seemed willing to decide: One of the most unusual cases in our practice could not even be resolved through the ordinary mechanism of the 1980 Convention. An Argentine family was in China, and the father decided to remain there with the child. The Chinese courts had declared themselves without jurisdiction because the parties were foreign nationals. The risk was clear: if the Argentine courts did not intervene either, there would be no court capable of effectively resolving the situation. An appeal was therefore filed in Argentina under the “forum of necessity” doctrine, precisely to prevent a denial of justice on an international level. After an extensive judicial and diplomatic process, China accepted the Argentine decision, and the child was able to return to his mother.

This case clearly demonstrates why private international family law cannot be reduced to simply asking, “Which convention applies?” Sometimes the decisive question comes first: Which judge in the world can truly protect this child?

Romania: When Domestic Failure Ultimately Compromises the State Internationally: We also worked on a case seeking the return of a child being held in Romania. The father worked for the United Nations, and domestic decisions failed to adequately resolve the situation. The case was subsequently referred to the European system of human rights, and Romania was ultimately found in violation. This experience is particularly relevant because it shows that States do not fulfill their international obligations simply by allowing a court case to exist. They must provide an effective procedure. A belated decision may be legally correct and, at the same time, come when the harm to the family has already become irreversible.

Article 15: Cooperation between the requested court and the State of habitual residence: In various cases, we have also utilized the mechanism provided for in Article 15 of the 1980 Convention, which allows for obtaining from the State of habitual residence a decision or certification regarding the wrongfulness of the removal or retention. This occurred, among others, in cases involving Colombia and California. In one such case, the necessary declaration was obtained in Argentina to support the proceedings continuing abroad; in another, the U.S. attorney was advised regarding Argentine law and the legal consequences of the removal. It is precisely in such situations that it is essential to work with attorneys in both jurisdictions. The attorney in the requested State is familiar with the return procedure; the attorney in the State of habitual residence can obtain custody orders, protective measures, declarations under Article 15, and other decisions necessary to ensure a legally secure return.

The criminal aspect: to be used with extreme caution: Some international abductions may also result in criminal consequences. Our firm’s previous webpage documented various cases under Article 146 of the Penal Code and Law 24,270, as well as proceedings in cases involving violations of court orders. However, the advisability of initiating criminal proceedings must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

An international arrest warrant may make it difficult for the abducting parent to voluntarily accompany the child during the return. In other cases, however, the conduct exhibited—such as fleeing after a court order or concealing the child—may make criminal intervention unavoidable. Civil and criminal proceedings should not be confused. The primary objective of the Hague procedure remains the swift recovery of the child, not the punishment of the parent.

What these twenty years have taught us: After cases that have been resolved in weeks and others that have lasted more than six years, there are some conclusions that are hard to dispute. The first is that time matters from day one. The second is that habitual residence is not the same as nationality, legal residence, or the parents’ citizenship. The third is that obtaining a judgment without simultaneously planning how to enforce it can lead to failure.

We also learned that safe return measures must be coordinated between both States; that an allegation of violence cannot be ignored but nor can it automatically transform the return process into a full-fledged parental responsibility trial; that the child’s opinion must be taken seriously and not reduced to a mere formality; and that legal remedies cannot be used indefinitely until the passage of time alters the very reality that the Convention sought to restore. Nor should one encroach upon the jurisdiction of the judge in the country of habitual residence.

Finally, we learned something much simpler: these cases require coordinated international efforts. It is not enough to be familiar with Argentine procedure. One must understand what is happening simultaneously in the State of habitual residence, what measures the foreign judge may adopt, which of those will be recognized, what documentation the Argentine court requires, and how the return will be carried out in practice.

The goal remains for the child to return home; the 1980 Hague Convention was not designed to reward one parent or punish the other. It was created to prevent the unilateral removal of a child across national borders from effectively altering the jurisdiction competent to decide matters concerning the child’s life. More than forty years after its adoption, that purpose remains extraordinarily relevant. Our experience spanning more than twenty years includes ordered returns, rejected returns, voluntary returns, agreements, absconding after judgments, children located after months, and decisions that had to pass through all levels of the court system before they could be enforced. That is why, in this area, one phrase sums up better than any other what should guide attorneys and courts: resolving cases correctly is essential; resolving them in a timely manner is also essential.