Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01980/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01980-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:11603(b) Int'l. Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) - Judicial Remedies

---

1

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVATORE ALBANI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIKA ALBANI,

Respondent.

Case No.: 15cv1980

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court held a twelve day bench trial on Salvatore Albani’s Verified 

Petition for the return of his child, I.A., to Singapore.1 The Court’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law are set forth below. 

I.

Petitioner Salvatore Albani (“Salvo”) was born in Italy. He completed his 

medical school and residency in Italy and moved to the United States in 1989 as 

a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”), 

and the nearby Scripps Research Institute. Salvo specializes in translational 

immunology, and currently lives in Singapore where he teaches as a Professor at

 

1

In cases involving minors, only initials are used. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 37
2

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Duke-NUS and acts as Director of the SingHealth Translational Immunology and 

Inflammation Centre (“STIIC”). In 1997, while teaching and practicing in San 

Diego, Salvo purchased an ocean-front house in Encinitas, California (“Encinitas 

house”), which he still owns today. Salvo also owns property in Italy, where he 

still has family. 

Erika Albani (“Erika”) was born in Peru but moved to Venezuela when she 

was eleven years old. She attended medical school in Venezuela and moved to 

the United States in 2000 for her residency. She completed her residency in 

Riverside, California, and began working at UCSD in 2001. Although her initial 

position was unpaid, Erika soon obtained a postdoctoral fellowship. Erika’s family 

has since left Venezuela. Three of her sisters live near San Francisco, while her 

father, mother, stepmother, and a fourth sister live in San Diego. 

Salvo and Erika met in 2001 while both worked at UCSD. Prior to their 

marriage, Erika moved into the Encinitas house with Salvo. The couple married

in San Diego on September 7, 2006. Shortly after the wedding, Salvo and Erika 

moved from the Encinitas house to a house in the nearby neighborhood of 

Olivenhain. The couple planned to tear down the Encinitas house and build a 

larger house on the property. They obtained the necessary permits, hired an 

architect, and gained the permission of the California Coastal Commission to 

demolish their existing house and build their proposed house. Meanwhile, Salvo 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 37
3

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

continued his research and teaching position at UCSD while Erika worked as a 

family physician in Escondido, California. 

A. The Move to Arizona

Salvo and Erika intended to move back to Encinitas as soon as they built 

their new house. However, in order to raise the money needed for the 

construction, Salvo began exploring other employment opportunities. Salvo’s 

grant money had run out at UCSD and he was experiencing difficulties working 

with his previous wife, who was also a research scientist at UCSD. Moreover, the 

problems with Salvo’s job and the pressure of trying to start a family had strained 

the couple’s relationship. 

In 2008, Salvo was offered a tenured faculty position at the University of 

Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. Erika agreed to move to Tucson because she 

believed it would help their marriage. Together, Salvo and Erika viewed Tucson 

as an opportunity to earn more money, advance Salvo’s career, and rekindle 

their relationship. Salvo traveled to Tucson first, and Erika joined him sixth 

months later after she closed down her practice in San Diego. The couple kept 

the Encinitas home, but purchased a second home in Tucson. While in Arizona, 

they frequently traveled back to San Diego.

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 37
4

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Their daughter I.A. was born on August 21, 2009—almost a year after the 

move.

B. The Return to San Diego

Following a change in leadership at the University, Salvo was no longer 

receiving the money he was originally promised. Similar to the events that 

transpired leading up to the move to Tucson, Salvo was soon dissatisfied with his 

job and his relationship with Erika again suffered. In February 2010, the family 

elected to move back to San Diego. At the time of the move, I.A. was 

approximately six months old. The family turned their Tucson house into a rental

and moved back into the Encinitas house.

Salvo began working at the Sanford Burnham Institute, but was unable to 

obtain further funding outside the grants he brought with him. Although Salvo 

was making close to $200,000 per year, the position did not offer tenure. Erika 

initially stayed at home to take care of I.A. following the move, but soon began 

working at UCSD as a family practitioner. 

I.A. spent the next two-and-a-half years in the Encinitas house. I.A. was 

enrolled in pre-school in San Diego, and took classes in gymnastics, swimming,

and Capoeira (a Brazilian martial art). Because Erika’s parents and her sister’s 

family live in San Diego, I.A. also spent time with her cousins and grandparents. 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 37
5

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

C. Singapore Negotiations

Salvo and Erika’s relationship continued to deteriorate following the move 

back to San Diego. Salvo was stressed financially and was unhappy with his 

position at Sanford Burnham. In response, he began exploring opportunities in 

Singapore with Singapore Health Services (“SingHealth”) and Duke-NUS, a 

graduate medical school located in Singapore but affiliated with Duke University 

in the United States.2 Following a visit in November 2011, Salvo was impressed 

with the academic environment in Singapore. He viewed Singapore as a viable 

career option given his perception of the Singapore government’s commitment to 

advancing medical research. 

In February 2012 Salvo forwarded Erika an email from a SingHealth 

representative that detailed travel arrangements, information regarding finding a 

house, meetings for Erika, and visits to childcare centers—all related to an

upcoming family visit to Singapore. The family traveled together to Singapore 

sometime in 2012. In April 2012 Salvo sent SingHealth an Executive Summary 

detailing his plans for a Translational Immunology and Inflammation Program to 

be instituted in Singapore with help from both SingHealth and Duke-NUS.

//

 

2 SingHealth and Duke-NUS partner to combine their clinical and research facilities. 

SingHealth also coordinates with KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, discussed below.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 37
6

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

On August 9, 2012, Salvo sent Erika an email with an attachment 

containing his detailed negotiation points. The attachment outlined the family’s

expenses, Salvo’s current employment proposal from SingHealth, and his

potential counter-offer. The attachment explored scenarios where Erika did not 

have to work and where the couple retained their Encinitas house and rented it 

out as an additional source of income. Also in the attachment, Salvo explained

his request for a long-term commitment from SingHealth rather than a short-term 

consulting position, and included in his potential counter-offer a request for a 

tenured position at Duke-NUS. 

D. Offers of Employment

Salvo received the following offer letters from SingHealth and their 

affiliates: an offer in December 2012 from KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital 

as a Senior Clinician Scientist; an offer in April 2013 from SingHealth as a 

Principal Research Scientist; an offer in November 2013 from Duke-NUS as a 

tenured Professor; and an offer in November 2013 from SingHealth as a tenured 

Senior Clinical Scientist. The first two offers are discussed in this section, while

the last two offers are discussed infra, section G.

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 37
7

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. December 2012 Offer

Salvo received a written offer from KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital on

December 13, 2012. The offer included a five year renewable contract subject to 

the agreement of the parties with a starting salary of S$25,000 per month.

3 Also 

mentioned in the offer letter was an academic appointment with tenure at DukeNUS, to be issued at a later time by the medical school. In total, Salvo would be 

appointed as a Senior Clinician Scientist at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, 

a Senior Consultant with the Department of Pediatric Subspecialties, and the 

Director of STIIC, operated jointly by SingHealth and Duke-NUS. Although the

offer letter is signed by Salvo, the record is unclear as to whether or not it was 

accepted.

Following this initial offer letter, Salvo received an email from Dr. Soo Khee 

Chee discussing potential offers of tenureship and a potential position for Erika in 

family medicine at KK Hospital and Duke-NUS. Salvo forwarded this email to 

Erika. 

On March 9, 2013, Erika sent an email to Claudine Toh, a Singapore 

realtor, asking about housing options in Singapore. Erika mentioned in the email 

 

3 The Singapore dollar is distinguished by an “S” before the “$” sign. On November 10,

2015, one Singapore dollar was equal to $0.70 U.S. dollars. See XE Currency Converter 

(available at www.xe.com).

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 7 of 37
8

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

that the move to Singapore was official and scheduled for the end of June. Erika 

forwarded this email to Salvo. 

2. April 2013 Offer

Salvo’s second offer letter came from SingHealth on April 11, 2013. In this

letter, Salvo was offered a position as a Principal Research Scientist with a

monthly salary of S$25,000, a clinical allowance of S$6,000, a housing allowance 

of S$7,000 per month, an education subsidy for I.A. capped at S$25,000 per 

year, and a S$15,000 travel allowance for his family. The contract specified an 

initial term of five years with an option to renew, subject to the agreement of both 

parties. Salvo signed this offer on April 14, 2013, and wrote June 1, 2013, as his 

start date in Singapore.

E. Conditions Surrounding the Move

At trial, the court heard testimony in addition to that of Salvo4regarding the 

potential length, circumstances, and reasons for the move to Singapore. 

1. Dr. Kee Chong Ng’s Testimony

Dr. Kee Chong Ng represented SingHealth in negotiations with Salvo 

leading up to the Singapore move, and testified on Salvo’s behalf at trial. Dr. Ng 

 

4 The Court finds Salvo’s testimony credible. Salvo’s statements at trial were consistent 

with the record as a whole and testimony from other credible witnesses.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 8 of 37
9

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

stated that tenureship was always a part of his discussions with Salvo; he viewed 

Salvo’s position as a long-term agreement, given that SingHealth invested over 

S$8 million to create a lab suitable for Salvo’s translation immunology research.

According to Dr. Ng, Salvo agreed to close his practice at Sanford Burnham and 

relocate to Singapore long-term. When the family visited Singapore, and again 

when Dr. Ng visited the family in San Diego, Dr. Ng communicated his intentions 

in hiring Salvo with Erika.

With regard to the five-year term in the April 2013 offer, Dr. Ng stated that 

such a provision was necessary should the parties wish to reevaluate Salvo’s 

research after the first five years. Regardless of the five-year provision, Dr. Ng 

expected Salvo to be with SingHealth for at least fifteen to twenty years. 

Dr. Ng also clarified the meaning of tenure within Salvo’s position: the 

tenured position at Duke-NUS was initially contingent on Salvo’s employment 

with SingHealth. In other words, so long as Salvo held a position at SingHealth, 

he would also be a tenured professor at Duke-NUS. However, Salvo would not 

be receiving separate compensation for his professorship. 

2. Dr. Gene Kallenberg’s Testimony

Dr. Gene Kallenberg is the Chief of Family Medicine at UCSD and testified 

on Erika’s behalf. Erika worked for Dr. Kallenberg immediately before she moved 

to Singapore with her family. 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 9 of 37
10

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

According to Dr. Kallenberg, Erika said she was moving to Singapore, but 

that she expected to return within three to five years. Dr. Kallenberg testified that 

he did his best to keep a position open for Erika upon her expected return 

because he valued her both as a doctor and a colleague. 

3. Dr. Martin Lotz’s Testimony

Dr. Martin Lotz and Salvo worked together at UCSD prior to the Albanis’ 

move to Singapore. Salvo and Dr. Lotz maintain both a professional and a 

personal relationship. Dr. Lotz testified on behalf of Salvo at trial.

Prior to the Singapore move, Dr. Lotz discussed Salvo’s opportunity with 

both Erika and Salvo. Dr. Lotz stated that Singapore presented an unusual 

opportunity because of the funding and support Salvo would receive from the 

Singapore Government. From Dr. Lotz’s experience as a research scientist, he 

viewed this type of situation as unique from the United States, given that in the 

United States, research grants control the distribution of funds. Dr. Lotz noted 

that Salvo viewed the move to Singapore as the last move of his career. 

Dr. Lotz also testified about his discussions with Erika leading up to the 

move. Erika was struggling with her position at UCSD given the long hours and 

administrative responsibilities. She viewed Singapore as an opportunity for a 

break and looked forward to raising I.A. in a new environment. 

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 10 of 37
11

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

In the weeks before the move, Dr. Lotz attended a good-bye party at the 

Encinitas house. At the party, Dr. Lotz recalled talking with Erika and Salvo while 

they tried to light a Chinese lantern from the balcony. Salvo expressed his 

concerns about the move, but remained hopeful that it would be the final move of 

his career. Likewise, Erika seemed excited about the move. 

4. Erika’s Testimony5

Leading up to the Singapore move, Salvo and Erika experienced difficulties 

in their marriage, which Erika attributes to financial stress. Salvo seemed

concerned that he was not making enough money to support the family’s

lifestyle. Erika agreed to move to Singapore because she thought it would help 

her relationship with Salvo; the significant increase in salary would relieve 

Salvo’s financial stress and help mend their relationship.

Moreover, the move would give Erika time to rest following the death of her 

brother, and she would have time to regroup following the stressful nature of her 

previous job. Salvo’s reduced stress from the extra income and research 

opportunities would also help life at home. Finally, I.A. would get to experience a 

 

5 The Court does not find much of Erika’s testimony credible. Many of the statements 

made during her testimony at trial were inconsistent with sworn affidavits made in the 

Singapore proceedings discussed below, as well as inconsistent with WhatsApp conversations 

with her husband. Moreover, her demeanor on the stand was self-serving. The following 

testimony is viewed by the Court as credible.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 11 of 37
12

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

new culture where she would make new friends, learn new languages, and enroll 

in excellent schools.

F. The Move to Singapore

Salvo, Erika, and I.A. moved to Singapore in the end of June 2013—two 

months before I.A.’s fourth birthday. Prior to the move, Salvo refinanced the 

Encinitas house, putting Erika’s name on the title in the process in order to 

include her income in any loan applications. Salvo signed a vacation rental 

agreement in March 2013 with North Coast Vacation Properties, LLC, in order to 

rent the Encinitas house as a vacation rental. The family renovated the Encinitas 

house for this purpose, and purchased new furniture and house accessories. 

Salvo borrowed $100,000 from a friend to help pay for moving expenses, and the 

family shipped an expensive couch and dining table, Salvo’s rowing shell, 

silverware, jewelry, and some personal items. 

The family sold Salvo’s motorcycle and two cars, but Salvo kept his 

Maserati in the garage at the Encinitas house and made arrangements with

Erika’s father, Carlos Cox, to act as the car’s caretaker. Those items not moved 

to Singapore were boxed up and left in the garage. In addition to the services 

provided by the rental agency, Erika’s mother moved into the casita next to the 

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 12 of 37
13

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

garage and arranged with Salvo to collect the mail and make sure the house was 

maintained.

Erika notified Dr. Kallenberg and her colleagues at UCSD about the move. 

Erika expressed her desire to rejoin the practice group when they returned to 

San Diego, and told Dr. Kallenberg they would likely be back in three to five 

years. Salvo closed his lab at Sanford Burnham and made arrangements for two 

of his postdoctoral researchers to join him in Singapore. 

At the time of this trial, Salvo’s Maserati was insured by Geico in the United 

States, and Salvo and Erika were registered to vote in California. Salvo and Erika 

both maintain California driver’s licenses, and their medical licenses are active 

and up-to-date in California. Moreover, Salvo continues to receive mail at the

Encinitas house. At trial, the parties spent considerable time scrutinizing the 

contents of Salvo’s mail. Salvo and Erika receive, inter alia, bank statements, 

mortgage statements, magazine subscriptions, junk mail, information regarding 

their medical licenses and Salvo’s car insurance, and correspondence relating to

their Tucson property. Finally, Salvo and Erika paid taxes in the United States as 

citizens living abroad during their time together in Singapore.

In Singapore, the family signed a two year lease on a four-story, roughly 

4,000 square foot apartment. They purchased other items to furnish their home, 

as well as a car and a new motorcycle. They also hired a live-in maid to clean the 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 13 of 37
14

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

house and help take care of I.A. Salvo began his new job on July 1, 2013. I.A. 

attended preschool shortly after the move, and was accepted the following month

to United World College in Singapore (“UWC”)—a well-regarded school for 

children ages 4-19. The UWC boasts an international baccalaureate program 

that the family felt would help I.A. eventually transition to schools back in the 

United States. 

Salvo understood the move to Singapore as a long-term professional 

commitment. Although he did not have an official tenureship offer from either 

SingHealth or Duke-NUS at the time of the move, he was in discussions with the 

University and hospital system prior to relocating, and expected to be offered 

tenure shortly after arriving in Singapore. In fact, tenureship was specifically 

alluded to in his previous offers. He discussed his offers of employment with 

Erika. 

Erika understood that the move would be long-term. She planned on taking 

some time off before working as a family physician in Singapore. She told her 

former employer, Dr. Kallenberg, that the move was for a limited time realizing 

that in the event Salvo grew unhappy with Singapore—like he did in Tucson—he 

would look for other options. Because of the family’s ties to San Diego, this 

meant possibly returning to the Encinitas house. However, she also believed the 

move to Singapore would be long-term, and looked forward to starting a new 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 14 of 37
15

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

career, mending her relationship with Salvo, and raising I.A. in Singapore. When 

she told Dr. Kallenberg that she would return in three to five years she was 

merely keeping an option open should Salvo grow frustrated with his position in 

Singapore.

G. Life in Singapore

Immediately following the move to Singapore, the family thrived. Erika 

enjoyed her time off from work and Salvo excelled at SingHealth as the director 

of STIIC. I.A. began her education at the UWC, made new friends, and 

participated in gymnastics, swimming, and capoeira. WhatsApp messages 

between the couple display their happiness: on a trip back to San Diego in 

October 2013, Erika mentioned to Salvo after a run on the beach that she was 

much happier in Singapore than she had previously been in San Diego. Salvo 

was making more than twice what he made at Sanford Burnham, and the family 

enjoyed traveling around Singapore as well as taking trips back to the United 

States. 

On October 18, 2013, Salvo received the Singapore Translational 

Research Investigator Award (“STaR award”). The STaR award is granted by the 

Singapore Ministry of Health, and offers a five-year research grant worth up to 

S$5 million, salary support up to S$600,000, and additional start-up costs. 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 15 of 37
16

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. November Offers of Tenure

On November 4, 2013—four months after arriving in Singapore—Salvo 

accepted an offer from Duke-NUS as a Professor on a tenure contract. The offer 

letter noted that Salvo’s position at Duke-NUS ran in tandem with his position at

SingHealth, and that his salary at SingHealth was inclusive of his academic 

appointment at Duke-NUS. In other words, should Salvo lose his position at 

SingHealth, his position at Duke-NUS would terminate. Therefore, as of 

November 4, 2013, Salvo had an employment contract as a tenured professor,

contingent on his position at SingHealth. 

On November 13, 2013, Salvo received a tenureship offer from SingHealth. 

The SingHealth November offer superseded the April offer mentioned supra, 

section D. Moreover, the November offer did not contain a five-year escape 

clause; rather, it was a complete offer of tenureship appointing Salvo as a Senior 

Clinical Scientist at SingHealth. The contract also contained a five year budget 

for STIIC, referencing Salvo’s STaR award as a means to offset some of the 

costs for the term of the award. 

On November 7, prior to the November 13 offer, Salvo told Erika through 

WhatsApp that he received tenure. In the message, Salvo expressed his disbelief 

that he would be making S$600,000 per year until the age of sixty-five. Thus, as 

of November 13, 2013, Salvo had tenure not only as a professor at Duke-NUS, 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 16 of 37
17

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

but also as a Senior Clinical Scientist at SingHealth. Erika knew of Salvo’s 

tenureship discussions prior to moving to Singapore, and knew that Salvo 

received tenure in November 2013.

2. Erika’s Employment in Singapore

Erika initially took time off from work following the move to Singapore. She 

experienced the tragic death of a family member, and used the months 

immediately following the move as a time to regroup and recover. 

As part of Salvo’s negotiations with SingHealth, Erika was promised a 

position at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital as a practicing physician. On 

July 29, 2014, Erika received an offer letter for a part-time, three-year position as 

a Senior Resident Physician. Because English is not her first language, Erika 

was required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (“TOEFL”) exam

before she received her license to practice medicine in Singapore. She 

previously passed the exam in 2001 in order to practice in the United States, but 

failed to pass the exam in Singapore. Thus, Erika was unable to practice as a 

physician in Singapore.

Discussed in more detail below, Erika eventually obtained a position as a 

part-time project manager at KK Hospital in October 2014. The position paid 

S$5,000 a month for twenty-two hours of work a week. 

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 17 of 37
18

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3. Permanent Residency Status

The family first started the application process for permanent residency in 

Singapore in November 2013. Prior to obtaining permanent residency status, 

Salvo was legally present in Singapore on a long-term residence pass. Erika and 

I.A. possessed dependency passes that were tied to Salvo’s residence pass. 

Permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship and provides benefits

including tax incentives, improved access to healthcare, easier transportation at 

the borders, and priority entrance to the Singapore public schools. 

The family scheduled to meet with an official regarding their permanent 

residency application in September 2014. However, following her separation from 

Salvo, discussed below, Erika withdrew her permanent residency application. 

Salvo’s application for permanent residency has since been approved. 

4. I.A.’s Activities in Singapore

I.A. was enrolled at the UWC for the two years prior to these proceedings, 

and attended a different preschool for the month prior to her acceptance at UWC. 

Her extracurricular activities while in Singapore included gymnastics, swimming, 

and capoeira. She participated in school trips and attended summer camps. She 

traveled with her parents—either separately or as a family—to multiple 

destinations around Singapore and around the globe, including Italy, San Diego,

Thailand, Indonesia, and Disneyland in Hong Kong.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 18 of 37
19

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

She also had many friends both in school and in her neighborhood. While 

many of her friends at UWC also came from ex-patriot families, she had friends 

native to Singapore as well. Erika and Salvo made a point of exploring Singapore 

with I.A., traveling to the ethnic neighborhoods, visiting the zoo and museums, 

and playing at the local parks. Finally, I.A. was a patient of a dentist and a 

pediatrician while in Singapore.

H. Erika and Salvo’s Separation

Erika and Salvo viewed the move to Singapore partly as a means to mend 

their relationship. However, the couple’s relationship only briefly improved

following the move. WhatsApp messages show the growing tension between the 

couple, which Erika attributes to Salvo’s work and persistent travel. Although

Salvo excelled professionally, Erika failed to pass her TOEFL exam, prohibiting 

her from practicing as a licensed physician in Singapore. Erika was unhappy with 

having to resort to a project manager position; as a trained physician, she wanted 

to practice medicine.

The couple eventually chose to separate. Divorce in Singapore was 

unavailable because Singapore law requires a residency period which the couple 

could not meet. Instead, the couple signed a Deed of Separation (“DOS”), which 

outlined, among other things, their agreements for shared custody, spousal 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 19 of 37
20

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

support, and the distribution of assets. The parties agreed upon a Singaporebased law firm to help facilitate the DOS, and Erika and Salvo signed the 

document on November 14, 2014.

The circumstances surrounding the DOS were hotly disputed at trial. Erika 

testified that she felt threatened to sign the DOS because she was out of options 

and had no other alternative. Furthermore, she stated that Salvo was emotionally 

and financially abusive in controlling her expenses, and that he verbally 

threatened her to force her signature. The Court does not find this testimony 

credible. The record clearly indicates that during the negotiations relating to the 

DOS, Erika participated voluntarily and expressed to others her belief that Salvo 

was a caring man and a good father. Specifically, WhatsApp messages with 

Salvo and a letter to Dr. Lotz contradict her claim.

According to the terms of the DOS, Erika and Salvo shared care and 

custody of I.A. on an alternating weekly schedule; I.A. would spend one week 

with Salvo and the next week with Erika. Soon after the parties signed the DOS, 

Erika moved out of the shared family apartment and into an apartment of her 

own. The parties also signed an international travel agreement, requiring the 

accompanying-parent to furnish all travel plans to the other parent for approval.

The DOS also contained provisions relating to the couple’s finances: Salvo 

agreed to pay Erika S$4,000 a month in support; the couple continued to share 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 20 of 37
21

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

his travel stipend from his job at SingHealth; and Salvo paid for I.A.’s education 

expenses. Erika signed two quitclaim deeds transferring her interests in the 

Tucson and Encinitas properties to Salvo, and Salvo agreed to service the 

remaining debts on the mortgages. 

Following the separation, the couple worked hard to make I.A.’s transition 

as smooth as possible. Salvo adjusted his work schedule so that he could pick 

I.A. up after school and stay with her overnight. Each parent continued to take 

I.A. on trips outside of Singapore, always receiving the consent of the other 

parent. They made parenting decisions together, and were flexible in the event 

one parent needed to adjust their time with I.A. to accommodate other 

commitments. 

Beginning in October 2014, Erika worked as a project manager at KK 

Hospital. In April 2015 Erika notified Jennifer Woon at Duke-NUS via email that 

major changes in her personal life might have altered her intention of obtaining a 

faculty position. Ms. Woon responded that the University was finalizing her 

appointment and title. Erika requested a leave of absence from her project 

manager position later that month.

Dissatisfied with her job, and following a series of medical issues, Erika 

approached Salvo with the proposition that she return to San Diego. She 

suggested a few possible scenarios were the parties would continue to share

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 21 of 37
22

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

custody and care of I.A., including one involving I.A. spending the summers with 

Erika in San Diego and the school year with Salvo in Singapore. Salvo was 

unwilling to consider sending I.A. to San Diego. 

I. Legal Proceedings

On April 23, 2015, Erika filed an application in Singapore family court for

joint custody and leave to relocate permanently with I.A. to San Diego. Erika 

chose to file in the court in Singapore because she was advised by attorneys in 

Singapore that the San Diego courts did not have jurisdiction to hear her request. 

At the time of the alleged wrongful removal, no decision was made on the merits. 

The Singapore court deemed the case on Erika’s application withdrawn as of 

August 13, 2015. At Salvo’s request, the Singapore court set a hearing on the 

merits in an order dated September 28, 2015. 

As part of a planned trip approved by Salvo, Erika and I.A. traveled to San 

Diego on July 3, 2015, with a return ticket to Singapore booked for July 21, 2015. 

Salvo had plans to take I.A. to Italy for a vacation, and then the family as a whole

planned on celebrating I.A.’s sixth birthday in Singapore with a party. 

While in San Diego, and at the advice of her sister, Erika visited an attorney 

to discuss her situation in Singapore. At this visit, Erika was advised that San 

Diego, not Singapore, had jurisdiction to hear her divorce case. Thus, on July 13, 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 22 of 37
23

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2015, and while still in San Diego, Erika filed for dissolution of marriage in San 

Diego Superior Court. Her initial petition states that Erika and Salvo had been 

residents of California for sixth months prior to the date her petition was filed. 

Erika also filed a declaration under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction 

and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) on July 13, 2015, that listed Singapore as her 

place of residence from June 2013 to July 2015. In her amended UCCJEA 

application, filed on August 17, 2015, Erika only listed San Diego as her place of 

residence following her return from Tucson in 2010. 

Erika did not return to Singapore, and she currently resides with I.A. in the 

Encinitas house. On September 4, 2015, Salvo filed a verified petition in this 

Court seeking the return of I.A. to Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention. 

(ECF No. 1.)

II.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 

Abduction (“Convention” or “Hague Convention”) was adopted in 1980 by the 

Hague Conference on Private International Law. See Hague Convention, Oct. 

24, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 (“Treaty Doc.”). The 

Convention addresses the use of international borders to obtain custody during 

domestic disputes, and seeks to “secure the prompt return of children wrongfully 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 23 of 37
24

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

removed to or retained in any Contracting States.” Treaty Doc., art. 1, § a.6

Specifically, the Convention focuses on cases where a child is removed from a 

parent that is lawfully exercising custody rights in the child’s State of habitual 

residence. 1980 Conference de La Haye de droit international price, Enlevement 

d’enfants, E. Perez-Vera, ¶ 12 (“Perez-Vera Report”), in 3 Actes et Documents 

de la Quatorizieme Session, pp. 425-473 (1982).7

Congress instructed courts to decide cases in accordance with the 

Convention, implementing the Convention through the International Child 

Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”). See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(d); Abbott v. Abbott,

560 U.S. 1, 9 (2010). As reiterated in ICARA, the purpose of the Convention is 

“to determine only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any 

underlying child custody claim.” 22 U.S.C. § 9001(b)(4); see also Holder v. 

Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The Convention’s focus is [ ] 

whether a child should be returned to a country for custody proceedings and not 

what the outcome of those proceedings should be.”).

 

6 The United States and Singapore are contracting States to the Convention. See

Status Table, Hague Conference (available at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=

conventionsstatus&cid=24).

7 The Perez-Vera Report is cited extensively in circuit and district court opinions. The 

Supreme Court cited to the Perez-Vera Report in Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010), but 

declined to comment on its persuasiveness. Regardless, the Supreme Court viewed the 

Perez-Vera Report as equivalent to a scholarly article. Id. at 19.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 24 of 37
25

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The Convention requires the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed 

from the State of the child’s habitual residence. Treaty Doc., art. 3, § a. Removal 

is wrongful if it is “in breach of custody attributed to a person . . . under the law of 

the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the 

removal or retention.” Treaty Doc., art. 3, § a. The petitioner must establish by a 

preponderance of the evidence that removal was wrongful. 22 U.S.C. § 

9003(e)(1)(A). 

I.A.’s removal can only be deemed wrongful if Singapore was her place of 

habitual residence. Thus, the first inquiry is whether Singapore was I.A.’s place of 

habitual residence at the time Erika removed I.A. to San Diego. 

A. Habitual Residence

Habitual residence is a mixed question of law and fact, and courts are 

instructed to “consider the unique circumstances of each case when inquiring 

into a child’s habitual residence.” Holder, 392 F.3d at 1016. Although the term 

“habitual residence” was intentionally left undefined in the Convention to avoid 

formalistic determinations, this ambiguity caused confusion as to how the courts 

should interpret a child’s residence. See id. at 1015.

In Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit laid out 

the analytical framework for determining habitual residence. In order to acquire a 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 25 of 37
26

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

new habitual residence, there must be a settled intention to abandon the one left 

behind, an actual change in geography, and a passage of an appreciable period 

of time. Holder, 392 F.3d at 1015 (citing Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1071-73).

1. Settled Intent

To acquire a new habitual residence, there must be a “settled intention to 

abandon the one left behind.” Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1075. “The intention or 

purpose which has to be taken into account is that of the person or persons 

entitled to fix the place of the child’s residence.” Id. at 1076. When the child at 

issue has “not yet reached a stage in their development where they are deemed 

capable of autonomous decisions as to their residence,” as is the case here, the 

appropriate inquiry is the subjective intent of the parents. Holder, 392 F.3d at 

1016-17. At issue in this case is whether Erika and Salvo shared a settled intent 

to abandon San Diego and adopt Singapore as their place of habitual residence.

When the parties no longer agree on their intentions, “the representations 

of the parties cannot be accepted at face value, and courts must determine from 

all available evidence whether the parent petitioning for return of a child has 

already agreed to the child’s taking up habitual residence where it is.” Mozes, 

239 F.3d at 1076. Here, Erika contends that the family never intended to make a 

long-term move to Singapore; she insists that the Albanis meant to return to the 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 26 of 37
27

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Encinitas house after five years in Singapore. Salvo argues that the move to 

Singapore was a final career move meant to last indefinitely.

The Mozes court recognized three broad categories common to Hague 

Convention cases when the parties no longer agree on their intentions. On one 

end of the spectrum are cases where courts typically find an intent to abandon: 

when the “family unit has manifested a settled purpose to change habitual 

residence, despite the fact that one parent may have had qualms about the 

move.” Id. at 1076. This happens when “both parents and the child translocate 

together under circumstances suggesting that they intend to make their home in 

the new country. Id. at 1076-77.

On the other end of the spectrum are cases where the child’s initial 

translocation from an established habitual residence was clearly intended to be 

of a specific, delimited period,” and the habitual residence remained unchanged. 

Id. at 1077. In between are cases where a parent earlier consented to a stay 

abroad, but disputes the actual time frame of the stay once the alleged abduction 

occurs. Id.

This case falls in line with the first category described above—that despite 

the qualms of one parent, the parties shared an intent to abandon a prior habitual 

residence and establish a new one. The Court finds as a fact that Salvo and 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 27 of 37
28

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Erika shared the intent to change their habitual residence from San Diego to 

Singapore, even though Erika had qualms about the move. 

Reservations about a move are insufficient to defeat a settled intention to 

abandon a previous habitual residence and establish a new one. Mozes, 239 

F.3d at 1077. In Mozes, the Ninth Circuit noted that, “when courts find that a 

family has jointly taken all the steps associated with abandoning habitual 

residence . . . they are generally unwilling to let one parent’s alleged reservations 

about the move stand in the way of finding shared and settled purpose.” Id.; see

also Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that a shared 

intent to establish a new habitual resident existed even if the respondent believed 

she would leave if her marriage did not improve). 

The Albanis took all the steps associated with abandoning San Diego as

their habitual residence. They moved furniture, personal items, and a rowing 

shell, turned their house into a vacation rental, and held a good-bye party. Salvo 

resigned from his position at Sanford Burnham, and Erika gave her employer

notice. In Singapore, they rented a four-story apartment, opened bank accounts, 

enrolled I.A. in preschool, and purchased more furniture to complete their home. 

When the marriage fell apart, Erika and Salvo sought the assistance of a 

Singapore law firm to facilitate their separation. When Erika wanted to relocate to 

San Diego, she filed her petition first with the Singapore family court. Although 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 28 of 37
29

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

they each had significant ties to the United States, they intended that San Diego 

would be their vacation destination, not that the city would remain their habitual 

residence. In short, their actions demonstrate an intent to leave San Diego 

behind.

Moreover, the move to Singapore was not simply a sabbatical or 

conditional stay. See Holder, 392 F.3d at 1018 (noting that sabbaticals and other 

conditional stays are not sufficient to abandon a prior habitual residence). The 

family in Holder moved to Germany for a four-year military tour. Id. The court 

recognized decision of other circuit courts that placed emphasis on the shipment 

of possessions and the failure to maintain a residence in the former location as 

evidence of an intent to abandon. Id. However, the court found that the family’s 

move was conditional given the unique circumstances of a relocation on military 

assignment—even though they moved possessions and sold their previous 

house. Id. (“We do not view [moving possessions] as dispositive [to abandoning 

a habitual residence] . . . considering that, as is customary, the military 

transported their belongings, thereby providing an incentive to move all 

possessions.”)

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Holder is indicative of the fact-specific inquiry 

necessary in Hague proceedings. See id. at 1016 (“We emphasize that courts 

must consider the unique circumstances of each case when inquiring into a 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 29 of 37
30

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

child’s habitual residence.”). Even though the Holders sold their house in the 

United States and moved all of their possessions, their move was based on 

military duty. The court recognized that the Holders did not abandon the United 

States as their place of habitual residence. In this case, the opposite is true. 

Although the Albanis kept possessions and property in the United States, the fact 

that Salvo pursued a long-term tenured research and faculty position in 

Singapore illustrates the indefiniteness of their move. Unlike the father in Holder

that was being sent for a four-year tour of duty, Salvo’s position did not have an 

end date. 

Indeed, the shared intent was that if Salvo was successful, this would be 

his last professional move and he would retire from the Singapore position. The 

fact that Erika thought that, given Salvo’s past dissatisfaction with his position, 

they may very well leave in three to five years does not change what they both 

intended.

Singapore does not necessarily need to be the country where the Albanis 

intended to “leave [their] bones.” Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1074. It is clear that both 

Erika and Salvo remain attached to San Diego. A large part of Erika’s family is in 

San Diego, and Salvo has many friends in San Diego and owns a house in 

Encinitas. There is a likelihood that, regardless of the result in this case, the 

parties will end up in San Diego at a later time. However, the parties intended to 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 30 of 37
31

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

abandon San Diego for Salvo’s tenured position in Singapore, they intended to 

raise I.A. in Singapore, and they intended to live in Singapore for an indefinite 

period of time and clearly for the foreseeable future.

8

Erika asks the Court to rely on the First Circuit’s decision in NeergaardColon v. Neergaard, 752 F.3d 526 (1st Cir. 2014), as a basis for the conclusion

that San Diego is I.A.’s place of habitual residence. The family in Neergaard

moved to Singapore when the petitioner’s employer moved him for a three year 

period. Id. The petitioner obtained an employment pass, and the respondent and 

their two children each received a dependent’s pass. Id. at 529. Moreover, the 

parties obtained health insurance in Singapore, opened bank accounts, enrolled 

in classes, looked at preschools, and found pediatricians while at the same time 

keeping bank accounts, retirement accounts, and property back in the United 

States. Id.

Erika is correct: the facts between Neergaard and this case are very 

similar. However, the two cases are easily distinguishable by the circumstances

surrounding the initial move. In Neergaard, the father was relocated to Singapore 

 

8 The Court is convinced that, even after her separation from Salvo, Erika was content 

on practicing medicine and raising I.A. in Singapore. Her intent changed after she failed the

TOEFL exam, which left Erika stuck in Singapore without the ability to practice medicine. It is 

unlikely that she would have moved to San Diego had she passed the exam and could practice 

medicine in Singapore.

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 31 of 37
32

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

by his employer for three years. In this case, Salvo accepted an entirely new 

position in Singapore, quitting his job in San Diego in the process. While Erika 

and Salvo did keep property, bank accounts, retirement accounts, and credit 

cards in the United States, they intended to move to Singapore to start a new life 

and career. Unlike the petitioner in Neergaard that was merely relocated 

overseas for a finite period, Salvo moved his entire career to Singapore. Any ties 

remaining in San Diego are insufficient to support the conclusion that the move 

was merely a temporary assignment. The fact is that Erika and Salvo abandoned 

San Diego and adopted Singapore as their new habitual residence.

2. Acclimatization

Although there was a shared settled intent to abandon the United States for 

Singapore, I.A.’s return to Singapore is also proper because she has 

acclimatized to life in Singapore. As the Mozes court noted, altering a child’s 

habitual residence doesn’t necessary rely on the intent of the parents; it requires 

an actual change in geography and the passage of an appreciable period of time 

sufficient for acclimatization. Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1078. The inquiry is not whether 

the child is happy where she currently resides, but rather if “one parent is seeking 

unilaterally to alter the status quo with regard to the primary locus of the child’s 

life.” Id. at 1079. 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 32 of 37
33

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

As the Ninth Circuit cautioned in Holder, acclimatization should not be 

confused with acculturization. Holder, 392 F.3d at 1019. Rather, the inquiry must 

focus on whether the child’s life has become “firmly rooted in [her] new 

surroundings” such that returning the child to Singapore would be tantamount to 

sending her home. Id. This coincides with the spirit of the Convention, which

“aims to secure the immediate reintegration of the child into its habitual 

environment.” Id. at 1021 (citing Perez-Vera Report ¶ 25). 

In Holder, the Ninth Circuit discussed the role of acclimatization in the 

absence of a shared settled intent to abandon a previous habitual residence. The 

court noted that, “in the absence of settled parental intent, courts should be slow 

to infer from such contacts that an earlier habitual residence has been 

abandoned.” Holder, 392 F.3d at 1019 (citing Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1079). 

Likewise, in Mozes, the Ninth Circuit distinguished between a “very full year” in a 

new country with facts that point “unequivocally” to the conclusion that the 

previous country has been abandoned. Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1083. 

Here, Erika and Salvo shared an intent to abandon San Diego and adopt 

Singapore as the family’s new habitual residence. Moreover, I.A. had more than 

one “very full year” abroad. Rather, until Erika decided to remain in San Diego, 

I.A.’s life was firmly rooted in Singapore. At the time of her trip to San Diego in 

July 2015 with her mother, I.A. had spent nearly as much time in Singapore as 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 33 of 37
34

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

she had in San Diego. I.A. attended two years of school and was enrolled in her 

third. She participated in gymnastics, capoeira, and swimming. She had friends 

both in school and out of school. She was a patient of a pediatrician and a

dentist. While I.A.’s passport is certainly representative of an international 

traveler, her numerous trips abroad simply reflect the family and lifestyle she was 

being raised in. 

I.A.’s current contacts with San Diego undoubtedly make this case 

troubling. At the time of this Order, I.A. will have spent nearly four months in San 

Diego. Because she has just turned six years old, she has undoubtedly adjusted 

back to life in the United States. The Court takes no pleasure in deciding that I.A. 

should be removed from her second-life here in San Diego. As mentioned 

repeatedly at trial, the Court hopes that Erika and Salvo can keep I.A.’s best 

interests in mind as she returns to her life in Singapore.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that I.A. was settled in Singapore prior to her 

San Diego trip. Her life was not in flux, see Papakosmas v. Papakosmas, 483 

F.3d 617, 627 (9th Cir. 2007) (refusing to find acclimatization when the children 

at issue frequently moved between houses in the new country), nor was her time 

in Singapore so short that her life could not become firmly embedded there, see

Holder, 392 F.3d at 1021 (noting that eight months was insufficient for a newborn 

to become acclimatized to a new country). She spent formidable years in 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 34 of 37
35

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Singapore, where she lived a full and active life. Returning I.A. to Singapore is 

thus tantamount to returning her home. See id. at 1019.

B. Wrongful Removal

For the purposes of the Convention, removal of a child is wrongful if it is “in 

breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . . under the law of the State in 

which the child was habitually residence immediately before the removal . . . .” 

Treaty Doc., art. 3, § a. The parent seeking return must have been actually 

exercising those rights at the time of removal, or would have been exercising 

their rights but-for the removal. Treaty Doc., art. 3, § b.

The Convention grants the courts the authority to take judicial notice of the 

law in the State of the child’s habitual residence. Treaty Doc., art. 14. At the 

conclusion of trial, the Court requested verification relating to Singapore’s

Women’s Charter. In supplemental briefing by Erika, the Court received the 

sworn affidavit of Moraly Joseph Veronica, a duly licensed attorney in Singapore. 

As such, the Court takes judicial notice of the Women’s Charter attached to 

Erika’s supplemental briefing, ECF No. 49-3. 

The Women’s Charter outlines the rights and duties of husband and wife 

upon the solemnization of marriage. Specifically, the Charter states, “the 

husband and wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in 

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 35 of 37
36

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

safeguarding the interest of the union and in caring and providing for the 

children.” Women’s Charter § 46. Moreover, the Deed of Separation outlines 

Erika and Salvo’s agreement to share care and custody of I.A. on an alternating 

weekly schedule. 

Salvo was actively engaged in caring for I.A. up to the time of I.A.’s trip to 

San Diego. Salvo also had plans to continue caring for I.A. following her return.

Because Salvo was exercising his rights to custody, and because Erika interfered 

with Salvo’s rights by removing I.A. to San Diego, the removal was wrongful.

III.

I.A. was habitually resident in Singapore leading up to her removal to the 

United States on July 21, 2015, because her parents intended to abandon San 

Diego and adopt Singapore as the family’s place of habitual residence. 

Moreover, I.A. was acclimatized to life in Singapore, where she lived a full and 

active life. Erika’s removal was wrongful because it was in breach of Salvo’s 

rights of custody, which he exercised up to the time of the removal, and planned 

to continue to exercise thereafter. 

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 36 of 37
37

15cv1980

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Salvo’s verified 

petition for the return of his child. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01980-BTM-RBB Document 67 Filed 01/12/16 Page 37 of 37