An eight-year-old American citizen faces imminent removal from the United States to Guatemala under a controversial Massachusetts court order that would place her in the custody of a biological father she has never known—a man accused of raping her teenage mother.
The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) is preparing to transport the child to Guatemala after a juvenile court judge determined that reunification with her deported father serves her best interests. This decision has sparked a federal lawsuit from the child's foster parents, who argue the move constitutes a violation of her constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen.
The foster parents, John and Catherine Cobbett-Walden of New Bedford, have cared for the girl since early 2022 and obtained their license as adoptive parents. They claim the state's actions represent a dangerous precedent where American children can be effectively deported without proper legal protections.
The case centers on a child who has spent her entire life in the United States, speaks only English, and has no connection to Guatemala beyond her father's nationality.
According to court documents, the child's mother, Alexsa Ramirez, was only fifteen years old when she became pregnant by Esvin Cabrera, a then-twenty-nine-year-old man. This relationship constituted statutory rape under Massachusetts law, though Cabrera was never prosecuted for the offense.
Shortly after the child's birth, Cabrera's work visa expired, resulting in his deportation to Guatemala. He had no involvement in his daughter's early life and made no efforts to establish paternity or contact child welfare authorities.
When the girl reached four years old, DCF removed her from her mother's care due to Ramirez's documented struggles with mental health conditions and substance abuse. The agency eventually terminated Ramirez's parental rights, clearing the path for adoption.
The child entered Massachusetts' foster care system and eventually found stability with the Cobbett-Waldens. The couple provided her with a stable home environment and pursued adoption, believing they would become her permanent family.
Meanwhile, Cabrera re-entered the United States illegally and eventually contacted DCF, initiating supervised visits with a child who had no memory of him.
For months, the father maintained minimal contact. Records indicate he waited at least four months before attempting any involvement in his daughter's life. Despite this absence, DCF shifted the child's permanency plan in May 2024 from pre-adoption to reunification with Cabrera.
The foster parents' legal team argues this decision ignored critical factors: the father's alleged sexual assault of a minor, his repeated deportations, his complete absence during the child's formative years, and the traumatic impact of removing a child from the only stable home she has known.
Last year, a Massachusetts juvenile court judge issued the order requiring DCF to facilitate the child's transfer to Guatemala. The agency maintains it is simply following court directives.
"DCF is required to follow court orders related to accompanying a child when they are being reunited with a family member," stated a spokesperson for the state's Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
This position has drawn sharp criticism from child welfare advocates and constitutional scholars who question whether administrative compliance should override a child's fundamental rights.
The foster parents filed suit in federal district court, arguing the removal violates the girl's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. They contend that as a U.S. citizen, she cannot be expelled from her country without the full protections afforded by the Constitution.
Attorneys for the family discovered what they describe as a routine practice where DCF facilitates the international removal of American-born children without adequate legal safeguards.
"This is an incredibly heartbreaking case," said Kirsten Zwicker, the attorney who filed the federal lawsuit against DCF. "They're expelling this girl out of the country where she's a citizen without due process in violation of her constitutional rights, and we've come to learn while handling this case, DCF routinely facilitates the removal of U.S. citizens outside the country."
On Friday, a federal district judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the federal court could not intervene in a matter that had been adjudicated in state juvenile court. The judge did not address the merits of the constitutional claims.
The foster parents immediately filed a notice of appeal, hoping the First Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the fundamental constitutional questions at stake. Their legal team argues that federal courts have an obligation to protect citizens' constitutional rights, even when state courts have issued orders affecting those rights.
The case raises profound questions about the intersection of immigration enforcement, child welfare policy, and constitutional protections. At its core, it asks whether an American child's citizenship provides a shield against effective deportation when a state court determines that living abroad with a biological parent serves her "best interests."
Critics argue that "best interests" determinations must consider not just biological ties, but a child's cultural identity, language, community connections, and the stability of her current environment.
The girl's situation is particularly precarious. She has never visited Guatemala, does not speak Spanish, and would be placed with a man she essentially considers a stranger. The foster parents describe her as a happy, thriving child who excels in school and has formed deep bonds within her community.
Child psychology experts note that removing a child from a stable, nurturing environment can cause lasting trauma, particularly when the child is placed with an unfamiliar caregiver in an unfamiliar cultural and linguistic setting.
The father's background compounds these concerns. Beyond the rape allegation, his history of immigration violations and deportations suggests a pattern of disregarding U.S. law. The foster parents' attorneys question whether someone with such a record should be deemed suitable for custody, particularly when the child has alternative permanent placement options with them.
Massachusetts DCF has faced scrutiny in recent years over its handling of complex custody cases involving immigrant families. This case highlights the challenges that arise when federal immigration status, state child welfare law, and constitutional rights intersect.
The agency's policy of complying with juvenile court orders, while legally understandable, may create situations where children's long-term wellbeing is compromised. Advocates argue that DCF should have discretion to challenge orders that would place children in potentially harmful situations abroad.
The constitutional implications extend beyond this single child. If state courts can order U.S. citizens to leave the country without federal constitutional review, it could establish a precedent affecting thousands of children in similar circumstances. The foster parents' appeal seeks to clarify whether federal courts can intervene to protect citizens' rights in such cases.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals will now decide whether to hear the case. Legal observers note that the court's decision could have far-reaching consequences for how states handle custody cases involving deported or deportable parents.
Meanwhile, the eight-year-old girl remains in limbo. DCF has not disclosed the timeline for her removal, but the foster parents fear it could happen at any moment. They continue to fight for her right to remain in the country of her birth, with the family she knows and loves.
The case serves as a stark reminder of the complex human stories behind immigration and child welfare policies. It challenges policymakers to consider how to protect the most vulnerable citizens—children—when their parents' immigration status creates legal and ethical dilemmas.
For now, the girl's future rests in the hands of appellate judges who must weigh state court authority against constitutional protections. Her foster parents hope the federal courts will recognize that American citizenship should mean something—that a child born in this country cannot be sent away without the full due process the Constitution promises.