Carlos Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla Campo met about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October 1997. After a few years, the couple separated.
In family court, the judge gave Campo custody of Michael. Under the order, the boy would visit his father one evening during the week and two weekends each month.
In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael. Alvarado called police, who tracked her down. She said she was angry at Alvarado for not helping her financially.
"It got ugly," said Campo, a nurse's assistant and legal permanent resident from Belize.
The couple returned to court and the judge modified the order to give the parents joint legal custody. Though the custody order designated two weekends a month for Alvarado, Michael spends every weekend with his father.
The judge also set a child support payment of $276 a month. Alvarado, who has a work permit and has been with the same plastering company for 13 years, also pays for Michael's health insurance.
Alvarado landed in immigration court after violating probation on prior convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license. County jail officials referred him to immigration authorities.
Alvarado's trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. Judge Christine E. Stancill ruled that he could stay in the U.S., saying that if Alvarado were deported, communication and visits with Michael would appear to be an "impossibility."
Stancill noted that in other cases, an undocumented parent may take the entire family home to his native country if deported.
"The compelling difference in this case is that the family would not be returning intact to Mexico but rather the respondent's relationship with his 7-year-old son would be permanently severed," she wrote in the decision.
She added: "The emphasis on the emotional well-being of the child is well founded in our child custody laws, and to go even further would be contrary to the spirit of our immigration laws."
The government attorney appealed the case, saying in court papers that "this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S."
In February 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision overturning the ruling.
