Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Avi HALAF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ayelet Bason HALAF, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-1221-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 20, 2010.
    
      Yoram Nachimovsky, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Robert D. Arenstein, New York, NY, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and B.D. PARKER Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Avi Halaf brings this action against his wife, Ayelet Bason Halaf, pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) claiming that his son was wrongfully removed from Israel, and asking for the return of his son to Israel. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

The Hague Convention aims “to protect children from wrongful international removals or retentions,” and “promptly restore[ ]” such children to their “country of habitual residence.” 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,504-05 (March 26,1986). We have stated that in cases brought under the Hague Convention, “[njormally the shared intent of the parents should control the habitual residence of the child.” Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir.2005). The intentions of the parents as of the last time that their intentions were shared is a question of fact that we review for clear error. Id. at 133.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing and considering the testimony of both parties, the district court found Ayelet Bason Halafs version of the facts to be more credible and found that when the parties’ intentions last converged, they intended for their son to live in the United States. We conclude that there was no clear error in these findings. We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court appropriately ended the inquiry after determining the shared intent of the parents.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing the petition is hereby AFFIRMED.