Olguin v. Santana

2005 WL 67094 (2005)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Olguin v. Santana

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
2005 WL 67094 (2005)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Noel Olguin (plaintiff) and Maria Santana (defendant) had two children, Sergio and Raul, and they all lived together in a rural Mexican town. Olguin abused alcohol and frequently beat Santana, often in front of the children. Olguin also threatened to kill Santana. Olguin’s parents, who also lived in the home, helped Olguin in covering up the abuse. Although Santana suffered the brunt of physical abuse, the children were occasionally hit as well. In a July 2001 incident, Olguin choked Santana in Raul’s presence and tried to throw Santana down the stairs. Santana reported the abuse to the police and went to live with her parents for two months. Thereafter, Santana took the children to New York. After eight months, Olguin convinced Santana to return to Mexico. For a short period, Olguin stopped his physical abuse and drinking, but he eventually returned to his old habits. In June 2003, Santana took the children once again to New York. There, the children settled into a stable routine and were comforted by being in the United States, safe from abuse. In February 2004, Olguin filed a claim for the children’s repatriation under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the convention), of which both the United States and Mexico were signatories. The district court scheduled a hearing to determine whether returning the children to Mexico would subject them to a grave risk of psychological harm, excepting them from return under the convention. Sergio presented as highly traumatized, had a history of psychotic and suicidal thoughts, and stated that he would “kill himself” if returned to Mexico. An expert witness found that Sergio suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of Olguin’s abuse, that he would suffer severe psychological damage if returned to Mexico, and that Raul would suffer irreversible psychological damage if separated from his brother and mother. The children’s former Mexican hometown lacked social, medical, and other support services for victims of domestic violence.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gleeson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership