Johnny Teixeira Jardim v. Barbara Yailyn Perez Paez

── Johnny Teixeira Jardim v. Barbara Yailyn Perez Paez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 26-10101 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10101 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOHNNY TEIXEIRA JARDIM, Petitioner-Appellee, versus BARBARA YAILYN PEREZ PAEZ, Respondent-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-24087-BB ____________________ Before GRANT, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Johnny Jardim petitioned for the return of his two young children to Venezuela under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. After a bench trial, the USCA11 Case: 26-10101 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10101 district court granted the petition and ordered their return. This is respondent Barbara Paez’s appeal. We affirm. I. Johnny Jardim and Barbara Paez have two young children: MJ (age ten) and EJ (age five). Both children were born in Venezuela, and until recently, have spent their entire lives there. But after Jardim and Paez separated in 2024, Paez wanted a fresh start for herself and the children—not in Venezuela but in the United States, where her mother and two sisters reside. In June 2024, Paez requested (and obtained) Jardim’s permission to take the children on a three-month-long summer trip to visit her family in Florida. But two weeks before they were set to return, Paez texted Jardim: “I’m thinking about staying and giving them a better life here. Obviously, this decision isn’t easy for you, but I would like us to think about giving them a better future, and for you to be able to come visit him every year.” Jardim responded “I’m telling you right now, don’t even think about it. You stay, I’ll stay with the children.” After Paez refused to return the children to Venezuela, Jardim petitioned a federal court for their return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. See 1343 U.N.T.S. 89; 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. Represented by counsel, Paez conceded that Jardim “established a prima facie case in support of his Petition, and would therefore be entitled to the relief sought therein.” Specifically, she did not dispute that the children were habitual residents of Venezuela, and by keeping USCA11 Case: 26-10101 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2026 Page: 3 of 6 26-10101 Opinion of the Court 3 them in the United States, she violated Jardim’s custody rights. See Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos, 950 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2020). Instead, Paez pleaded four affirmative defenses: (1) Jardim consented or acquiesced to her retention of the children in the United States; (2) Jardim filed his petition more than a year after the retention and the children have become well-settled in their new environment; (3) the children would face a grave risk of harm back in Venezuela; and (4) the oldest child (MJ) has validly consented to