In breach of court order, mother kept daughter in Canada after winter break visit
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother’s urgent motion to stay an order to immediately return her child to her habitual residence in California, where the father resided, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
In Mazzeo v. Mazzeo, 2026 ONCA 447, the parties had a daughter together, born in California in June 2016. In 2019, the parties separated while living in San Mateo County, California. In or around July 2020, the appellant mother moved to Ontario.
On Mar. 27, 2023, in California, the parties consented to a final parenting order that imposed joint decision-making and set the child’s primary residence in Pacifica, California.
Pursuant to the final consent order, the daughter arrived in Canada on Dec. 18, 2025, to visit her mother during the winter holidays.
The child was supposed to return to California last Jan. 5. However, the mother did not return her daughter, who has remained in Ontario and has not gone to school.
Before the California Superior Court, San Mateo County, the respondent father obtained a Jan. 23 chasing order for his child’s immediate return, absent medical prohibition.
On Mar. 19, in Ontario, the father applied for his daughter’s immediate return to his California home under art. 12 of the Hague Convention.
On May 21, an Ontario application judge ordered the child’s immediate return to her habitual residence in Pacifica, California, upon finding that the mother wrongfully retained her daughter in Ontario.
The return order authorized the father to apprehend his child with law enforcement, if necessary.
The mother appealed against the return order. She urgently moved to stay the return order pending the determination of her appeal.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that granting a stay would not serve the daughter’s best interests.
First, the appeal court held that the case sufficiently met the low threshold for a serious issue for trial.
The appeal court acknowledged the child’s firm opposition to a return, her strong preference for residing in Canada with her mother, and the impact of this decision on her life.
However, the appeal court decided that the appeal’s low prospects of success weighed against granting the stay.
The appeal court explained that the application judge’s order aligned with the Hague Convention’s purpose to protect children from the harmful impacts of their wrongful removal or retention and to return them to the jurisdiction most appropriate to rule on parenting and decision-making disputes.
Second, the appeal court accepted that denying a stay could render the mother’s appeal from the return order moot.
However, the appeal court accorded minimal weight to this factor, given the mother’s failure to obey court orders and her breach of the father’s custodial rights under California law. The mother conceded that she was in breach of the final consent and chasing orders.
Third, the appeal court found that the balance of convenience favoured denying a stay. The appeal court ruled that the mother’s unilateral actions continued to harm the father’s relationship with his daughter.
The appeal court recognized the principle underlying the Hague Convention that returning a child to their habitual residence – California, in this case, as found by the application judge – would serve their best interests.
Given that it is currently June, the appeal court noted that refusing a stay would enable the daughter to spend the summer with her father in California.
The appeal court held that letting the child stay with her father over the summer would not prejudice her, even if the mother ultimately succeeded in her appeal, such that the daughter would have to return to Ontario in the fall.
The appeal court confirmed that all the terms of the return order remained in full force and effect.
The appeal court urged all involved to do everything they could to avoid police involvement for the child’s sake. The appeal court encouraged the mother to accompany her child to California and help her adapt to the father’s home.
The appeal court ordered the mother to inform it as soon as possible whether she planned to pursue her appeal, which would be set on an expedited basis to offer certainty to the parties and their child as soon as possible.
Lastly, the appeal court did not order motion costs.
