INTERNATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY IS NOT AN "I HAVE AN IDEA"

A state judge was indicted and convicted of interfering with federal ICE authority. "A federal jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan guilty Thursday of obstructing immigration agents as they attempted to arrest an undocumented immigrant defendant last April."  NPR

In this case ICE is probably as happy as they can be that they got rid of an anchor baby.  How sad.

ICE is dead serious about controlling recalcitrant state judges.  It should shock no one the lawyers of Cameron County fail to understand the law on this issue.

Any action concerning a child, and specifically a US born child, before removal to Mexico is the best interest of the child, and not what the judge or parents want.

Such a child is entitled to an ad litem to assist in what is in the child's best interest.  The child's criminal defense attorney cannot act as an ad litem.  This is so basic it is surreal a judge and attorney would not know this.

The best example is, the attorney who sues for a child in a personal injury case, cannot be trusted to be acting in the child's best interest in terms of a settlement.  It is standard an ad litem is appointed to insure the child's best interests.

A child born in the US is entitled to a complete education within the ISD wherein they live.  Under federal law school ISD's can refuse entry to any child, a US citizen or not who do not live within the ISD.  This is not an immigration issue.  It is a problem commonly seen with athletes from one ISD wanting to attend school in another ISD.

When you publicly admit a child has no address within an ISD, you are insuring the child cannot attend school within the ISD.  This is not in the best interests of the child.  Just because an ISD may ignore the law does not automatically make it in the best interest of child.

In all likelihood an indigent child is on CHIP health insurance and SNAP, although the mother may be undocumented.  It is a well-documented problem that US children forced to live in Mexico are denied health insurance and a proper education.  This is commonly seen in custody cases wherein the parent living in Mexico under international law is given primary custody.

It is not in the best interest of a child to cut off their CHIP health insurance.  Even though they are not formally enrolled now, during a medical emergency any local hospital would have no problem enrolling the child.

All of this is why the child needs an ad litem.

Both Mexico and the US have their own laws concerning taking a child across the border.  An Ad litem would do their best to locate a remaining parent in the US or family member to better understand the child's options.  A parent denied all best options may not be able to decide what is in her child's best interests.  A relative may be a better option than removing a child to Mexico.  This is based on evidence and a due process hearing of record before a competent judge.

If there is a parent still in the US that child cannot be taken into Mexico without the remaining parent's consent.  Depending on all the facts a US Passport is needed, or maybe even a dual citizen passport.

If all the safeguards are not met, moving a child across international borders could be a crime.

I do not have all the facts.  But I know enough denying a child who is a US citizen an education and CHIP health insurance is never in the child's best interests unless international custody law mandates removal to Mexico, which in many cases is the reality. 

If investigated and there are better options on the US side, the child's 14th Amendment Rights were violated.

It is surreal to me a child in such a precarious situation can be denied an ad litem attorney separate from a criminal defense attorney. 

An ad litem would have insured BISD would not deny the child an education because the child has no residency within BISD.  An ad litem would have verified if the child was on Chip health insurance and would be able to continue to receive health insurance.  There is no such health insurance in Mexico for US citizen children. This is a major issue with Mexico and US custody cases. 

It is not clear if the child had a criminal defense attorney or an ad litem.  While it is true you do not want to place a minor on the street, that does not mean you can ignore 14th Amendment guarantees, or international law. 

It is possible under proper investigation the best interests of the child were met.  In this case because the child had residency in the US before the problem came about, custody must be decided under Texas law. 

If no one speaks up, we shall never know if the child received all due process rights.

A complete investigation will tell us if all the rules were followed.  If the father's consent was not obtained with a lawyer, he can reopen everything.