The child would not suffer psychological harm if returned to Argentina. When interpreting Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention courts have found that "situations where repatriation might cause inconvenience or hardship, eliminate certain opportunities, or not comport with the child's preferences" do not constitute a grave risk of harm. Courts have uniformly found "grave risk" under Article 13(b) when a child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically, as a result of repatriation. The disruption of the usual sense of attachment that arises during most long stays in a single place with a single parent should not be a 'grave' risk of harm for purposes of the Convention. There was not a scintilla of evidence that the child subject to this dispute would be face any risk either physical or psychological if returned to Argentina.

The Magistrate Judge, who met in camara with the child, found the child to be articulate and mature enough to express his desire to stay in Puerto Rico, but nonetheless, did not find the child's opinion on returning to Argentina to be conclusive. Like the "grave risk" exception previously discussed, the "age and maturity" exception is to be applied narrowly. The fact that the child prefers to remain in Puerto Rico, because he has good grades, has friends and enjoys sport activities and outings, is not enough for this Court to disregard the narrowness of the age and maturity exception to the Convention's rule of mandatory return. The Court exercised its discretion to order the child's return to Argentina despite the child's expressed preference to remain in Puerto Rico.