sons back to the venezuela following the wrong for attention by their mother and doctor the week his wife in the united states after a family trip the district court's judgment should be reversed for two reasons first the district court erred when it found that dr luis and mrs suna had the requisite shared intent to abandon venezuela as the children to betray residence without having a meeting of the minds as to the next country where the children would have been reside second and he agreed to have the children permanently leave them as well and whether they were going to go to spain or stay here or what that was going to be determined later i respect your honor i would disagree with  t what the family did discuss and they had discussed this for many years since two thousand and seven is what the record reflects is that they were open to leaving venezuela and they considered multiple countries and this particular trip was just an annual trip that they took to the united states every year so dr luis could attend a year ology conference and the children common extent of a family vacation and go to disney world and sea world on this particular situation  they booked this trip in september two thousand and thirteen this in the trip and then this so called threats that mrs soon alleges in her brief occurred in march two thousand and fourteen after those threats the family did not move their tickets up they did not leave the country they kept their tickets on this annual trip that kept them as they were and they decided at that point that they would extend the family vacation for the children missi was and at that meeting dr luis made it abundantly clear that he disagreed with the plan that mr sooner had to apply for asylum he made that statement there and he made that statement repeatedly to just disagree to his own personal application but there was always an agreement that the mother and the children would apply for asylum and if it worked out fine or if that worked out to go to spain when they w february twenty fifth team just several months before this hague edition was filed and she said to dr luis and her family and friends i am doing the petition for asylum in the united states to guarantee i will be able to work in the shortest amount of time and th will travel to spain and look for a job and once he was able to find a job i will waive the signing up process for us to travel and meet up on european land in case you're not able to find a job we can continue with the asylum process so this final process according to ms assumes all representations was just a stopgap measure to buy the family some time to let some civil unrest settle down in venezuela and to discuss and potentially that this family never intended to permanently abandon venezuela for example gun owners they did not sell their home they did not sell dr luis his medical practice they left behind ninety percent of their belongings they bought round trip tickets returning to venezuela they came to the united states on a six month tour is an asus they didn't bring any winter clothes they only brought two bags for a at that time was a twelve day trip to the united states that extended into the summer and the reason that dr luis agreed that the children could stay for the summer is he thought it was in their best interest to spend the summer with their cousins to learn was their home and so once the situation improved in venezuela dr luis had come back and that had occurred where all the people were starving two animals were starving to consider is that at the time all this was happening this was an intact family the marriage was intact mrs suna testified that she loved her husband and that there was never any plane to permanently separate d luis from his family and particularly his children i'd like to turn to the issue of consent and where the district court erred is the district court err to fail to consider any of the limitations or conditions that dr louise placed upon his consent for the children to come to the united states there's no dispute that he consented to them being removed temporarily from venezuela he was on the plane with them he flew to the united states with them they were going to go to sea world and disney world but dr luis never consented and there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to show that dr luis consented to the children living permanently in the united states and without him in fact the record shows otherwise dr luis insisted upon a power of attorney that would retain his parental rights and of the children being able to get medical care and that's why he signed that power of attorney it did nothing more than provide for the children to be able to get medical care just weeks after dr louise returned to venezuela he talked to mrs suna and said come on back and this was in july twenty fourth team he left at the end of may twenty fourth and he said things have calmed down come on back come on back to venezuela and when it was clear that she would not bring the children back after repeated requests he filed for divorce he stopped deposited dollars into a bank of america a current account and he'd had a bank of america account for years since two thousand and eight so that's not a dispositive fact to prove that there was any consent as for the children to stay in the united states this was simply a loving father who wanted to provide and care for his children and once it was clear that his wife had unilaterally decided that she was going to stay in the united states with the children by herself without where he could not practice medicine he stopped positing money into that account and instead he put money into her venezuelan account and then of course he filed this hague titian and going back to the cancellable asylum application as we talked about he agreed to her request to meet with this document interpreter the first day that they came to the united states for the trip and at that time and ever since then he has made it clear he did not agree with the application he did not think it was a good idea for the family and notably that application was filed by mrs suna on august twenty fourth teen months after he left months after he told several months after he told her that he didn't agree to the application how was to start us now at the time of the trial grant or the status was pending interview and i'm not aware of any updates since decision of asylum she can stay in the united states and we would suggest that it creates a dangerous precedent to give that asylum application and wait because the very purpose of the hague convention is to prevent unilateral gamesmanship and form shopping for parents to take their children to a friendly forum and try to obtain custody and to give any weight to for asylum application to suggest that it's sort of an insurance policy that only encourages gamesmanship and encourages people to go to another country and file an asylum application to try to circumvent the very purpose of the hague convention there is no dispute and that's even clear is a soon as briefing that this is silent application was just a stopgap measure it was just to buy them time to let things calm down in venezuela so they can figure out their next  their own or i would direct your attention to baxter and baxter a third circuit case that has strikingly similar facts nearly identical to what we have here of a married couple an family there's an agreement that the current living situation in australia was not suitable for their child and so the mother brings the child to the united states on a one way ticket she brings her important things and documents with her and the law court in that case found that the consent defense applied but the third circuit reversed and the third circuit held the record establishes that the party saw the trip from the first instance as an opportunity to escape from the disagreeable circumstances of bathurst trial and to visit family and to buy time to plan their next move to visit family and to buy time to plan their next move that is exactly what happened they were going to visit their cousins aunts and uncles and first go to texas and they were going to buy time to let the situation in venezuela calm down for dr ways to see if there potentially could be another place where this family could move to stay together and he could practice medicine intention was always to stay connected to his children missing a does not dispute that and to provide for his children and then when it was clear that they would not return to their home in venezuela that's when he filed a petition that doesn't ring true because of the discussion about relocating in spain which he never pursued but the reason for that your honor was because the situation in venezuela improved as they had done for years for years and years they talked about please the court and council i believe that the nutshell of the facts here is your honour's have observed is the district court found that dr luis and miss assume that intended to move from venezuela and never to go political asylum doctrine but will use was to look for a job in spain if he got one missile soon and the children would join him there dr luis changed his mind and returned to venezuela but how do we know that dr luis intended to permanently abandon of venezuela in addition to business in his testimony dr luis was asked on the record of page three seventy two that when the family went to  an immigration consultant in the united states he learned for the first time that he would have to undergo twelve to fourteen years of additional medical training in order to be allowed to practice in the united states and that the transcript says why weren't you in agreement with that because of the medical study that i had to do what is fourteen years of study the record early supports the fact that the parties intended to abandon them as well as their residents the issue in this case the true issue in this case is well set forth in the reply brief and the issue there is stated  where the district court here was in deeming venezuela abandoned as the children's habitual residence without a new country of habitual residence being established the second part of that statement is not retained the child somewhere other than the child's habitual residence well if the parents decide we are going to abandon the prior habitual residence then there can be no wrongful retention in another country that briefly go over those things in larby the parents and the kids lived in texas that was a military officer he sued for divorce in texas he got deployed mom was a permanent resident of the u k at there were like the court proceedings in agreed temporary orders the parties agreed that the child would stay with mom in london while the dad was deployed the filed divorce decree eventually gave that the right to select the residency mom then file to the hague that it titian granted by the district court based on the u k being a less shared agreed residence this court said no in larby this court ordered extensive extensively from a case called moses out of the ninth circuit and two thousand and one this was a case where israeli parents agreed that the mom and the children would move to the united states for fifteen months after that there was a dispute over what their group was the district court did not make a finding on that that filed this petition in one of the district court but the ninth circuit reversed because there was no and i think the language of the mat circuit is key because it was quoted extensively and relied on by this court and marble what the court said is when a child has no clearly established habitual residence elsewhere it may become habitually resident even in a place where it was intended to live only for a limited time and here's the key language this same is true that the child's prior habitual residence has been effectively abandoned by the shared  extensively in the briefs is the bears obscure case out of this court in two thousand and fourteen this case stands for the proposition that the parents have to have a shared agreement you can't just one parent has an agreement other parent thinks they have an agreement it has to be a shared agreement and in that case there wasn't a shared agreement because a child wasn't even born at the time separated in this case as i said the parties agree shortage in venezuela that was not true at the time the petition was filed or at the time of the trial there was violence in venezuela but it is been only recently that there has been a famine and disease venezuela and that's why that was not brought to the attention of the district gamesmanship by moving the child to a new country in hopes of obtaining a more favorable custody determination from a different court where's the evidence of forum shopping in this case we have the parents agreeing to abandon visit venice euler because it's too dangerous for their children they moved to the united states dr luis files for divorce in venezuela i don't know the status of that where's the form shopping they agreed to come here and it doesn't make any difference as these cases illustrate that they had a permanent final destination in mind so i respect with the person a ski language  without at some point making a joint decision for the child in the new country and that's exactly what happened here your honor the original intent was we are going to abandon minutes a while and we're going to go to the united states we're going to talk to the immigration consultant we're going to get political asylum there are all of us including the children and if we're not able to do that well let me back up once they got here dr luis found out that he couldn't practice medicine the united states without twelve to fourteen years of additional training and understandably he said no i don't i don't want to do that so plan b became ok we'll go forward with the were tried to escape the violence of venezuela and it written that off as a country in which to live when they came the united states their plan was to apply for political asylum with the thought apparently of remaining here indefinitely because otherwise the discussion of whether dr louise could practice medicine here would never even have come up when i found out he could not plan b became ok dr gleason if you're going to go back on the venezuela and because you have a joint only right and proper for a person to remain a citizen of or continue to live in the country in which he's brought up that was his explanation he changed his mind so the original attempt to the u s apply position consistent with that language judge wiener quoted that in that one sentence you quoted does have can be read to indicate you do need shared intent on the new bit you residues the that the convention does not require that the convention requires only that there be a habitual residence of the children that has not been abandoned and this one it wasn't bandit our position is part one is all that's necessary but if part two is necessary there was a shared intent just because there's in the original intent doesn't mean it can't change and these parents made a change in their plan and dr luis decided  that he did not want to go through with it and in in and he did not and it cut off child support and file for divorce right he did he he far as i know he wasn't under any order for child support but he paying fo five hundred dollars a month through the rest of that year and then he stopped on the main legal child porn on them paying money to support your children yes yes he did he did that there's no question dr luis has been in touch with the children they abandon venezuela because it's too dangerous and he changed his mind the last shared intent was to leave venezuela and that's the one principle that the one p retention the brief goes through and it talks in detail about the facts showing both those things and i will not take up the court's time with going over them however i do wish to point out an error in the brief to bring states that the district court found that there had been acquiescence and consent that is incorrect the district court found that there had been consent but not at we had sets so i apologize to the court for the air and asked that you read the brief only in the context of first i'd like to address this issue of clan name versus plan b whether there was a play on ebay and the facts establish that there was no plan and it's illogical that there was a plan a to permanently abandon venezuela for everyone to apply for asylum for the following reasons they didn't sell their home they didn't sell his medical practice they left behind ninety percent of their things and mrs you know even testified that they were before they left venezuela that she got dr luis his paperwork together so that he could look for a job in spain so it's the logical that the intent was for this whole family including dr luis to apply for asylum in the united states because once they apply for asylum they can come back why do you choire about how long it would take to become certified as a doctor in the us if the plan wasn't to be in the us i don't think the records clear that that's why he decided not to come to the you are that at that point when they met with the interpreter i'm not sure that the record the record is clear that that's that's a fact that i don't know that he didn't know that before that it was  family was abandoned venezuela permanently and leaving all their things leaving their home life behind without time up to loose sense like anybody would do if they were or your honor that there's absolutely no evidence that that was the case the sassoon didn't didn't suggest that at all i'd like to to go through the timeline a little bit about about this asylum application indeed m me what this interpreter let's let's talk about you know what let's go through our our possibilities our options here and he agreed to do that he made it abundantly clear at that meeting he did not agree with the application he goes back to venezuela several weeks later in july he tells mrs suna come on back the situation is better she refuses him september he tell between before the tells her again to come back she applies for asylum so the point she applied for asylum he had already told her come on back the situation is better point you asked about the plan to potentially apply for a job in spain and that was always on the table dr louise a spanish citizen you wouldn't have to go through the same training and certification required in the united states to practice but in that plant there were all sorts of contingencies what if you didn't get a job in spain what would they do that the whole point of this is there were sorts of contingencies and they were trying to figure it out and again that asylum application by mr sooners own words was just a stopgap measure it just bought him time to figure it out and in that time the situation in venezuela calmed down the district court creates a real troubling precedent for any parent who wants to send their children abroad temporarily whether that be to visit grandparents whether that be to seek medical without having a meeting of minds to supplant that language you read french media is explicit it's clear that you can't do that you can't supplant with that we can't abandon without having a meeting the minds supplant and that's what's what's happened here is a soon a dozen of us dispute that the district court doesn't dispute that and all we're asking for your honour's is for you to reverse the decision of the district court and send these venezuelan children back to venezuela where they were born and raised the venezuelan parents for a venezuelan court to make a determination of custody as the divorce final i don't believe that's true your honor i'm not sure exactly the state of the divorce