## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 2511 D ER EK R ED MOND , P etitio ner-A pp ellee, v. M ARY R ED MOND , R es pond ent -App el lant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 11 C8542

— Ch arl es R. N orgle, Judge
.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 31, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 25, 2013

B efore E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd W ILLIAM S an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ma r y R e d mo n d l e ft h e rh o me in I ll inois at age 19 to atten d coll ege in I relan d . T he re sh e m etD er ek R ed m on d , an d th e t w o b e ga n a ro m an tic re lat ion sh ip . For m o s t o ft h e n ex t 1 1 y ea rs , th e c ou p le l i ve d t o g e the ri n I r e l a nd , tho ugh the y n e v e rma r r i e d; thei r com m on l astnam e i s a co i nci dence. I n 200 6 M ar y b ecam e pr egnant. S he and Dere k a gr eed th at th e b ab y w ou ld be bo rn in A m er ica b u t r a ise d in2 N o. 12

- 2511 I reland

. On M arch 28, 200 7, t he ir son, “JM R, ” w as born i n I l l i noi s. They r etur ned to I re l and w i th the baby11 days l a t e r, b u tth e i rr e l a t i o n s h i p s o o nd e t e r i o r a t e d

. O n N o v e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 7, Ma r y mo v e d b a c kt o I l l i n o i s w i th J MR ag ains t D erek ’ s wi sh es . The c hi l d was no t qui te e i g ht mon ths o l d. Ordinar i l y a pare nt i n Derek ’ s pos i ti on m i ght ha ve re cour se to the Hague C on ve nti on o n the Civi lA spects ofInter nati onalChild A b d u c tio n , Oct. 25 , 19 80, T. I
. A

. S. N o. 11 670, w h ich r equi re s s i gnato ri es to prom ptl y r etur n c h i l dren t o the c ountr y o fthei r habi tual re si dence w hen theyar e “ w ro ngfull y r em ove d to or r e t a i ne d in” a no the rc o un t r y i n bre ac h o fthe c us t o dy ri ghts ofthe l eft-behi nd pare nt. H ague C onventi on a rt
. 3, sup ra , T
. I
. A. S

. No
. 1 1 6 7 0
. T h e c a t c h f o r De r e k wa s th a t he had no custo dy r igh ts und erI ri sh l aw ; unm ar ri ed f ather s in I re l and are notl ega l l y r eco gni zed as p arents, alt h ou gh th ey m ay p et itio n a c ou rtfor gu ar d ian sh ip a nd c us t o dyr i g ht s . T he Ha g ue Co nv e nt i o n r e med y w as unavai l abl e. D e r e k th er ea fte r w ag ed a th re e-a n d -a-h alf-y ea r b at tle to est abl i sh hi s pate rni ty ri ghts i n I re l and. On Febr uary10 , 20 11 , an I r i sh co ur t g r an te d Der ek ’ s r eque stf o rg ua r di an shi p and j oi nt cust ody of JM R, and al so or dered that th e ch i l d l i ve i n o rne arBa l l y m ur phy, I r el an d. M ary parti ci pated in the se proce edi ngs a nd was i n I re l and w i th J M R f orthe fin al h eari ng. The co urt al l owed herto ta ke JM Rba c k t o Illino is t o m ak e p r e p a ra tio n s fo r th eir m ove t o I re l and, but o nl y o n condi ti on that s he pro m i se und ero ath t o re turn with the chi ld by M ar ch 30, 20 11.N o. 12

- 2511 3 M ar y m ade the prom i se b u t d id noti ntend to kee p i t; sh e re turned t o I l l i noi s with J M R and rem ained w i th hi m the r e. Ei g htmonths l at erDe r ekfi l ed a H ague Co nve nt i o n pe ti ti o n in fede r alc o ur t inI l l i no i s cl ai m i ng that M ar y wrongful l y “ re tained” J M R i n the U ni ted St ate s in br each ofhi s newlyr eco gni zed custo dy ri ghts i n I r e l a nd

. The dis tr i ct c ourthel d that a s o fM ar ch 30, 201 1, wh en M ar y di sob eye d the I ri sh cou rt ’s o rderand the al l ege d w ro ngful “r ete nti on” occur re d, J M R’s habi tualr esi dence w as I re l and. This w as so, the cour t held , e ven though J M R had l i ved i n the U ni ted S tat es al m ostal lhi s l i fe. The cour t focused inst ead on the par ents’ i ni ti alag re em en t to r ai se the i rs o n in I r el an d

— th ei r l astshar ed i ntent about w here he woul d l i ve

— an d ga ve th is evi dence deci si ve effect. Because M ar y’ s m ove to I ll in o i s was uni l at er al, the c o ur t co nc l ude d tha t J M R ’s r es i den ce i n the Uni te d S ta te s was t em po r ary a nd c o nt i ngent on the r esul ts of th e I ri sh guar dianshi p proce edi ng. Th e c o ur to r de r e d J M R r e t urne d t o I r e l a n d

. Mar y a pp e a l e d. W e r eve rs e. The di str i ct c ourttr eat ed the parents ’ l astshar ed i ntent as a k i nd o ffi xed doctri n al testf or det er m in i nga c hi l d’ s habi tu alr es i den ce . I t i s no t. The det er m i na ti o n o fhabi tu alr es i dence unde rthe Hag ue Conventi on i s a prac ti cal, fl exibl e, f actuali n q u i rythat ac co unt s for al la va i l ab l e r el ev an t ev i den ce a nd c o nsi ders the ind i vi d u al c i rcum sta nces ofea ch cas e. H er e, the p a r e nt s ’ s ha r e d int e ntwh e n J M R wa s b o r n s he ds litt le ligh t o n th e q u es tio n of h is h ab itu al re sid e n c e in 20 11 . W h en M ar y m ov e d w ith th e b ab y t o Illino is in4 N o. 12

- 2511 No v e mbe r2 0 0 7, s he h a d the e xc l us i v e r i g htt o de c i de w here he w oul d l i ve; because she w as J M R’s sol e legal cus to di an, hi s r emov al from I r el an d was no t wro ng ful unde r th e Con ve nt i o n. By M ar ch 20 11 , th e ti m e of the all ege d w ro ngful “r ete nti on, ” J M R’s l i fe was to o firm ly ro ote d in Ill i noi s t o consi der I re l and his hom e. Because J M R w as habi tu al l y r es i den t i n the Uni te d S ta te s, the di s t r i c tc o ur twa s wr o ngt o o r de rh i m “ r e t urne d” t o I r e l a nd

.
I . B a c kg r o und M ary i s anAm er i ca n c i ti ze n a nd a l so a c i ti ze n o fI r el an d thro ugh herf ather, wh o w as bor n i n I re l and. Dereki s a c i t i z e n o f I r e l a n d

. I n 1 9 9 6 M a r y l e ft h e r f a m i l y h o me i n I llin oi s t o att end com m unity c ol l ege i n I re l and, re tu r ni ngdur i ngthe s um m er s an d a t o th ert i m es dur i ng the y ear . S he m et Derekso on a ftershe ar ri ved, and they be g anan in ti m at e r el at i o ns hi p. S he r emai ne d i n I r el an d aft er co m p let in g h er as so c i a te ’s d eg re e, an d th e c ou p le l i ved to gether f orm or e tha n a decade. But theyneve r mar r i e d. In 20 06 M ar y b ecam e pr egnant. The co up l e a gr eed th at th e c h ild w ou ld be bo rn in A m er ica b u t r a i se d in I r el an d. The y t r avel ed to g ethe rt o the Uni te d S ta te s, a nd o n March 2 8, 20 07, the i rs o n, J M R, was b o r n in Bl ue I sl an d, I l l i no i s. De r ekwas pr es en t atthe b i r tha nd sig n ed a vo lu n ta ry ac kn ow l e d g m e n t o f p at er n ity ; he is a l s o l i s t e d a s J M R’ s f a the ro n the c hi l d’ s b i r th c e r t i fi cate
. U n d er Il lin ois law a p ro p er ly ex ec u te d vo lu n ta ry ac kn ow ledgm ent o f p ate rni ty cre ate s a pre sum pti on o fpaterni tyN o. 12

- 2511 5 and m ay ser ve as a ba si s fora c h ild-s up porto rder w ithou t m ore elaborate procee d ings to estab li s h pa tern ity
. See 750 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 4 5 /3 , 4 5 /5 , 4 5 / 6
. A c hi l dsu ppo rt orde re nt er ed pur su an t to a n a ckno wl edg m en t o fp a t e r ni t y ma y a l s o i nc l ud e a de t e r mi na t i o n o fc us t o dy rig h ts , gu ar d ian sh ip , an d vis ita tio n te rm s. See id

. § 4 5/ 14. I n contra st , i n I re l and the naturalf athero fan illeg itim at e c h ild d oe s n oth av e p ar en ta l righ ts
. See Gu a r diansh ip of Infants A ct, 1964, Pa rt I, § 2 ( A ct N o. 7/1964) (I r. ), avai l ab l eathttp: //w w w . i ri shsta tutebo ok. i e/ 1964 /e n/ac t/ pu b/ 0007/. U nd erI ri sh law “[ t] he m othe r ofan i l l egi ti m ate i nfa nt shal lbe guar dian ofthe i nfa nt, ” id. Pa rt II , § 6(4); the defi ni ti on o f“f ather ” e xcl ud es “t he natur alf athero f an i l l egi ti m ate i nfa nt, ” id. PartI, § 2 . A n unm ar ri ed f atherm ay f or m al l y pet i ti on a cour t forr eco gni ti on o f pa t e r ni ty an d a pp o i nt men ta s a g ua r di a n o fh i s c hi l d, a nd i fr e c o g ni z e d ma y s e e ka d ete rm i na t i o n o fc us t o dy an d ac c es s rig h ts
. See id

. PartI, § 3; Par t I I, § 11. I n acco rdance w i th the i r or i gi n al plan, M ar y a nd Dere k re turned t o I re l and w i th J M R on Ap ri l8, 2 00 7, wh en the b aby w as 11 days o l d. Th e c ou ple r em ai ned to g e t h er for s ev er al m on th s, b u t d u rin g t h is t im e, th eir r el at i o ns hi p fella par t. M ary a l l eg es i n the unde r l y i ng custo dy dis pu te that Dereksuffe red probl em s with alco h ol an d abu sed her. In N ovem ber 2007M ary deci ded to end the re l ati onshi p, m ove bac k t o I l l i noi s, a n d r a i s e J MR th e r e . O n No v e mb e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7, s h e a nd J M R l eft I re l and and fl ew to I l l i noi s. I n F e b r ua r y 2 0 0 8 Ma r y r e t u r n e d t o I r e l a n d w i th J MR for a visi t. T he p u r p ose of the trip is not ent irel y clear.6 N o. 12

- 2511 A t l eas t in part, M ar y wa n te d t o fini sh co l l ecting her belong ings. S he a ls o m et w ith a com m un ity w elf are offi cer, ei th erto r equest i nfo rm ati on r ega rdi ng m ai ntenance paym ents or t o apply f or“per i odi c paym ents” f o r J M R ( we do no t k no w whi c h)

. On M a r c h 2 5 , 20 08, whi l e Mar y a nd JMR we r e s t i l li n I r e l a nd , De r e kfi l e d a peti ti on f orguar dianshi p a nd custo dy ri ghts i n an I ri sh cour t and obtained an ex parte or der preven tin g them from leaving th e cou nt ry. O n the bas is ofthis orde r, M ary a n d J MR we r e s t o p p e d b y a u th o r i t i e s a t th e a i r p o r t
. On A pri l22 , 20 08, an I ri sh co urt vacat ed th e e x parte or der, and M ar y l eft I re l and w i th J M R the ne xt day. D uring th e cou rse of th e nex t three years, M ary re turned t o I re l and pe riodic al l y t o parti ci pate in hear i ngs on Der ek’ s guardi anshi p an d custody pet i ti on. S he at

te n d ed a M ay 15 , 200 8 h ea rin g a n d f l ew ba c k t o Illino is tw o d ay s late r. S he r etur ned to I re l and and attended an oth er hearing on Jun e 25, d uring w hi c h t h e Iri sh cou rt decl i ned to exer ci se j uri sdic ti on o verthe case . Dere k appeal ed thi s deci si on, and a notherhear i ng was se t f orJ uly29
. Less th an a w eek be f or e the hear i ng, Dere k o bt aine d a n e x pa r te o r derr equi r i ngtha t M ary a nd J M R appear. M ar y a nd J M R did notappear but her c o u n s e lfi l e d f o ra co nt i n u a n c e , wh i c h wa s d e n i e d

. At the he ar i ng the r evi ew i ng co urt re ver sed the l ower court’s r uling and hel d that the co urt had j uri sdic ti on ove r Derek ’ s a pp l i cati on. M ar y a p peal ed. The I ri sh H i gh Courth ea rd the cas e o n N ove m ber18 and rul ed aga i nst he r on N ove m ber26 , 20 08. M ary the n fil ed her ow n ap p li cat io n in th e I rish cou rt to re l o c a t e wi th J M R t o the Uni t e d S t a t e s p e r man e nt l y.N o. 12

- 2511 7 Du e l i ngp e t i t i o ns we r e n o w b e f o r e the c o ur ti n I r e l a nd

. At a h e a r i n g o n J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 9 , th e c o u r t o r d e r e d th a t J MR unde r g o a n inde pen den t psy ch i at r i c ass es sment, a nd th e cou rt -ap p oin te d ex am in er in te rv iew ed JM R a n d h is parents , and al so othe r pater naland m ate rnalrela tives. T h e p sy c h i a t ric rep or t c on c lu d ed th at JM Rw as w elladj us te d a nd ha pp y b ut w o ul d b en efi t fr o m g r o wi ngup nearbo th par ents

— an arr an ge m en t t h a t c ou ld on ly w ork i f JM Rand M ary m oved to I reland gi ven De rek’s l ack ofA m er i can ci ti zenshi p. The r epor t reco m m ended that Derekbe gr ante d guardi anshi p and custody r i ghts, an d als o th at JM Rlive in Ire lan d so th at D er ek co u ld h a v e r e g u l a ra c c e s s t o h i s s o n . F i na l l y , th e r e p o r tr e c o mm ended that the par ents devel op a parentin g plan f orJ M R w i th “a pp ro pri ate weekl y a nd r egul ar i zed ac c es s p lan s.” Thr o ug ho ut th i s ti m e J M R l i ve d wi th M ary i n O rl an d Park, I l l i noi s. M or e th an a yea r and a hal fpasse d fro m M ar y’s m ov e to I l l i noi s a nd the hear i ng atwh i ch th e I rish cou rt com m en ced cons iderat ion of D erek’s gu ar d ian sh ip p et itio n on th e m er its an d ord er ed a p sy c h iatric evaluat ion; an oth er year and a half elaps ed before the fi na l he a r i ng o n F e b r ua r y 9 , 2 0 1 1
. By the t i m e o f th athe ar i ng, J M R ha d spe ntwel lo ve rthr ee o fhi s f o ur yea rs i n I l l i noi s. H e a tte nd ed daycar e a nd pre scho ol i n Orlan d P ar k fro m the age o ftwo and a hal f, and w as en ro lled in k i n d e rg ar te natSt. M ich ae l’s Sc h oo l in Orl an d P ar k fo r Se ptem ber20 12. H e s aw a pediat ri ci an a nd a de nt i st i n I l l i no i s , wh e r e a l lo fh i s me di c a lr e c o r ds w er e k ept. H e pl aye d o n a chil dren’ s ba seba l lte am w i th the l oca lbas ebal las soc i ati on, had playdates with8 N o. 12

- 2511 fri ends, and w ent t o churc h w ith hi s m othe r and play ed in t he nei ghborhood par k o n Sundays. H e has a l ar ge extended f am i l y in I llin ois and had fr equent co ntact wi thhi s g r an dpar en ts , a unt s, unc l es , a nd c o us i ns . Dur i ng thi s t i m e, he per i odi cal l y t ra vel ed to I re l and w i th M ar y, m ost l y for cour t pr oce edi ngs. Between N ove m ber20 07 a n d Fe b ru ar y 2 01 1, h e s p en t a b ou t t en an d a h alf s e pa r a t e d we e k s i n I r e l a nd

. On Febr uary10 , 20 11, the d ay a fterthe fi nalhear i ng, the I ri sh co urt e nter ed an o rderdenyi ng M ar y’ s a pp l i cati o n t o r el o ca te a nd g r an tingDe r ek ’ s r eque st f o rg ua r di an shi p and j oi nt cust ody o verJ M R. The co urt or dered that J M R live in I re l and, i n ornearBal l ym urphy, Carl ow C ou n ty, an d at te n d t h e B ally m u rp h y N at ion al Sc h oo l. Derekand M ar y were o rder ed to share c u st ody o n an equalbas i s. M ar y a nd J M R w er e in Irel and fo r the fi nal hear i ng; the cour t a l l owed herto r etur n to I l l in ois with JM Rto w ind up her affai rs. A s a con d it io n o f he r return to I l l i nois, M ar y pr om i sed under o ath no t t o apply to any c ourto utsi de ofI re l and reg ar d in g J M R’s custo dy, not to re m ove J M R to a thi rd co untry, and to qui t her j ob and m ove with J M R to I re l and on or b efor e M ar ch 30, 2011
. The I ri sh co urt i ncor pora ted the se und er takin gs i nto i ts or der. Fo r hi s par t Der ek prom i sed notto r em ove JM Rto a th ird co u n tr y, to p ay $2 00 p er m on th in c h ild su p p ort, an d to pa y for M ary’s plan e ticket to return t o I r e l a nd

. M ar y adm i ts that she never i ntended t o kee p th ese p ro m ise s. O n Fe b ru ar y 1 5, 20 11 , sh e re tu rn ed to Il lin ois w ith J M R , an d on M ar c h 23 sh e p et itio n ed for s oleN o. 12

- 2511 9

cus to dy i n Co o kCo unty Ci r cui t Cou r t. The ne xtda y s he m ove d for an em er gency prot ecti ve or der aga i ns t D er ek al l eging a hi sto ryo fabuse and al cohol

- re l ate d m i sco nd uct. The M ar ch 30 deadli ne ca m e a nd went. M ar y di d not m ove to Irel and w i th J M R as or dered. On M ay 10, 20 11, th e I rish cou rt i ssu ed a furt he r order com p ell ing M ary to bring J M R to I re l and on o r bef or e J une 30. Thi s o rder sta ted thatr eta i ni ng the chi l d i n the U nited S tat es vio lat ed th e H ag u e C on ve n tio n . A g ain M ar y d id not com ply

. Back in Cook County Ci rcuit Court, Dere k m ove d thro ugh counselto di sm i ss M ar y’ s s ol e- custo dy peti ti on f o rl a c kof j ur i s di c t i o n un de rthe Uni f o r m Chi l d- Cu s t o dy J uri sdic ti on a nd Enfo rce m ent Act, 75 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 36/ 101 ets eq . U nd erthe A ct I l l i nois cour ts gener al l y l ack j u ris d ict ion o v e r a c u st od y p et itio n w h en a va lid c us t o dyo r de ro fa no the rs t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o ur ta l r e a dy go ve rn s t h e d isp os itio n of th e c h ild

. S e ei d. §§ 36 /1 05, 36 /2 06 . A fte r c on fer rin g w ith th e Iris h co u rt, see id. § 3 6/ 110, the I l l i noi s s tat e- cour t j ud ge conc lu d ed as f ol l ows: ( 1) Dere k had t i m el y invoke d the j uri sdic ti on o fthe I ri sh cour t; ( 2) the I ri sh guar dianshi p and custody decr ee w as i ssued i n substa nti alco nfo rm i ty w i th the r equi re m ents ofthe A ct; and ( 3) the decree di d not v i ol ate fund am entalpri nci ple s o f hum an ri ghts. A ccor dingl y, on J uly27, 2011 , the Illinoi s co urt defe rr ed to the pri orcl ai m o f ju ris d ict ion by th e Iris h co u rt, see id. § § 3 6 / 1 0 5 , 3 6 /2 06, an d de cl i ne d to exe r ci se j ur i sdi ct i o n ov erM ary ’ s pet i ti o n. A tthi s p o i ntDe r e kmi g hth a v e s o ughtr e g i s t r a t i on and enf or cem ent o fthe I ri sh decr ee i n Cook County10 N o. 12

- 2511

W e d o n ot k no w w hy the co u rt tho u g ht it h ad au tho rity to 1 order M ary, a free adu ltci ti zen, to go to Ir el a n d . As f ar as w e c an d eterm ine, neith er th e H ag u e C on v en tion no r its i m pl em en t ing l eg i s l at i on, the I nt er nat i ona l Chi l d Abd uc t i on R em edies Act, 102 St at. 437 ( 1988) ( codifie d at 42 U

. S. C. §§ 11601 etseq . ( 20 06 ) ) , author i ze s the c ou rtt o o rde r the r el oc at i on of p are nts. C irc u it C ou rt, alon g w ith anord er gra n tin g h im im m ed iat e phy sic alc us to dy o fJ M R, a s pr o vi ded unde rthe U n iform A c t. See id

. § § 3 6 /3 0 3

- 3 0 6 , 3 6 /3 1 0 , 3 6 /3 1 3
. Ins t e a d, on Decem ber1, 20 11

— fi ve m onths afterthe st at e j ud ge dism i sse d M ar y’ s s ol e- custo dy peti ti on

— De r e kfi l e d a H ague Conventi on peti ti on in the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s see king an or der that JM R b e r etur ned to I re l and. Derekco ntended that by disobeying the I ri sh cust ody o rder, M ar y had wro ng ful l y r et aine d J M R in the Uni te d S ta te s. The d istr i ct c ourthel d an evi denti ar y hea ring o n J une 8, 20 12, and by wri tte n or der e nter ed on J une 19, 20 12 , gr anted Derek ’ s peti ti on. The j ud ge concl ud ed that as ofM ar ch 30, 20 11 , whenM ary de fi ed th e I r ish cour t’ s o r dera nd the al l ege d w ro ngful re tenti on o ccurr ed, J M R’s habi tu al re si dence w as I re l and, not the Unite d Sta tes
. The j ud ge or dered J M R re turned to I re l and b y J uly9, 20 12, acc om pani ed by M ar y. 1 M ary ap p eale d and asked the di str i ct c ourtto st ay the r etur n or der pendi ng appeal, bu t th e co urt denie d the m oti on. Sh e th en m ove d thi s co urt f oran e m er gency sta y. A m oti ons panel deni ed the sta y a nd al so denie d her mo t i o n t o e xp e di t e the a pp e a l

. In c o mpl i a nc e wi thN o. 12

- 2511 11
the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de r, J M R wa s r e t urne d t o I r e l a nd , w here he r em ai ns.

I I . Discussi on A . M ootness Befo re address i ng the m er i ts, we note a j uri sdic ti onal que st i o n. A rtic l e I I Io fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n l i m i ts the federa lj ud i ci alpow erto actual, o ngoing ca ses o r contr over si es, a l i m i tat i on underst oo d to re quir e a l i ve d ispu te invo lv in g a party w ith “an actu al injury tr aceabl e t o t h e d efendant and l i kel y t o be r edres sed by a f avo rabl e j ud i ci aldeci si on. ” Le wis v. Cont ’ l Bank Corp. , 494 U .S

. 47 2, 47 7 ( 1990 )

. The cas e- or - contr ove rs y r equi re m ent “ subsi sts thr ough a l lst age s o ffedera lj u d i ci al pr o c e e di ng s , t r i a la nd a pp e l l a t e . ” Id. Ifo n appeal i t be

com es “i m possibl e fora cour t t o gr ant a ny effectual re l i efwh atev er ,” the c ase bec om es m oo t a nd j uri sdic

ti on no longerexi sts
. Knox v. Se r v. Em ps . Int ’ l U ni on, Loc al 10 00, 13 2 S

. Ct. 22 77, 2 28 7 (2012) ( i nter nalquotat i on m arks om itted ). A t o ra lar gum ent we as ked wh etherM ar y’ s a pp eal be ca m e m o o t w hen J M R was r etur ne d t o I r el an d. The questi on a ro se because a f avo rabl e deci si on m ay not re dress M ar y’ s inj u ry ; i t was notcl earas a l ega lo r pract i calm att erthata re versa lco uld s ecure J M R’s “r ere t urn” t o I l l i no i s . We o r de r e d s up pl e men t a lb r i e fi ng, not ing tha t the Sup rem e C ou rt had grante d certiorari i n C hafin v. Ch afin , 133 S. C t. 81 (20 12 ), to d ec id e t h is ve ry qu es tio n . Th e C ou rth as n ow iss u ed its d ec isio n in12 N o. 12

- 2511 C hafin , hold ing tha t an a p p e al from an ad verse retu rn or der under the Hague Conventi on i s no t r endered m oo t by the c hi l d’s re turn
. C h a fi n v. Ch afin , 133 S. Ct. 10 17, 1028 ( 2013 ). T he f ac ts i n C hafin tr ack the f acts of thi s case i n all m ate ri alr espect s. There , as her e, the parents di sputed the quest i on o fthei r c h i l d’s habi tualr esi dence f or pur po se s o fthe Hag ue Co nv ention’ s r etur n r emedy

. The f athercl ai m ed i t was the U ni ted S tat es; the m othe r cl a i me d i t wa s S c o t l a n d

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i d e d wi th t he m o th era nd o r der ed th e ch i l d r etur ne d t o S co tl an d, a nd m ot h er an d ch ild leftfor Sc ot lan d th e n ex t d ay . Id. at 1022
. T he ques ti o n b efo r e th e S upr eme Co ur t was “ whethe r, afte ra c hi l d i s r etur ne d pur su an t t o [a Hag ue Co nv en ti on] o rder, any appeal o fthe or der i s m oo t. ” Id. at10 21. The Court appli ed the sta nd ar d rul e that a cas e bec om es m oot only w he re i t is “im p ossible for a court to g r an t an y effec tu al r el i ef what ev er to the p r ev ai l i ng p ar ty. ” Id. at10 23 ( ci ti ng Knox , 1 3 2 S

. C t
. a t 2 2 87 )

. The Court hel d that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a uth or ity to i ssue a re - re turn o rder

— eithe r “und erthe Conventi on i tse l fo r acco rdi ng to ge nera lequi tabl e pr i nci ple s”

— w as a m er i ts questi on, nota j uri sdic ti onalquesti on, and th e propri ety of a re-r et u rn ord er w as n ot“s o i m p lau sib le th at it i s insuffi ci ent t o prese rv e j uri sdic ti on. ” Id. at 102 4. The Court al so brushed as i de conce rns about pract i cal i m pedim ents to enf or ci ng a re - re turn o rder

. J u ri sdic

ti onalco nti nuati on di d not depen d o n the l i kel i hood th ata re - r etur n o r derwoul d b e o be y ed bythe pa r en t w i th cust ody o r enf or c ed by a for ei gn co urt; “di ffi cul ti esN o. 12

- 2511 13 i n enf or cem ent, ” the Cou rt s aid , do notr ender a ca se m oo t. Id. at10 24- 26. Instea d, the pr operquesti on i s if the c o ur ti s s ue s a r e - r e t urn o r de r, a nd if the c ustodi al parent com pli es w i th the or der, wil lthe agg ri eve d parent getthe chi l d back? A bsent a “law ofphysi cs p re ve n t[in g] [t h e c h ild ’s] re tu rn ” o r a s im ilar im p ed im en t, t h e a n sw er to th at qu es tio n is ge n er ally “y es .” Id. at 1025
. A ccord ingly, th e C ou rt he ld th at a p a r en t’s appe alo fa n a dve r se r etur n o r derunder th e H ague Co nve nt i o n do es no t becom e m o o t bythe c hi l d’ s r etur n. Id. at10 28. The ho l di ngi n C hafin r eso l ves the pr i m ar y m oo tness con cern w e raised at oral argum en t. A s a secon d ary j uri sd ict ionalpoi nt, we specul ate d that the appealm ay be m oo t be cause the I l l i noi s s tat e- cour t j ud ge has d eferred to th e Irish cou rt’s j urisd iction i n th e un d erl y i ngc us tod y bat tl e. In o th erwor ds, i fwe r ev er se a nd re m and and the di str i ct c ourto rder s J M R r et urned to I l l i noi s, wil lhe g o str ai ght back to I re l and pu rs uant to the I l l i noi s co urt’ s deci si on? W e a ske d fo r supp l em ental br i efi ngo n thi s i ss ue a s wel l, a nd a s th i ng s st an d r i g ht now , the an sw er to our qu estion is “no.” Th e I rish cou rt’s cus to dy r ul i ngw as bef o r e th e I l l i no i s co ur t o n the l i mi t e d que s t i o n o fthe c o ur t’ s j ur i s di c t i o n t o de c i de Ma r y ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rs o l e c u s t o d y . D e r e kh a d a s k e d the I l l i noi s co urt to defe r to the I ri sh co urt’ s e ar l i ercl ai m o f j ur i s di c t i o n un de r the t e r ms o f the Uni f o r m Chi l dC us to dy an d J ur i sdi ct i o n Enfo r ce m en t Act. The c o urt gr anted Dere k’ s m oti on a nd di sm i sse d t he peti ti on f or l ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uris d ictio n, but i ts or der di d not al terthe sta tus quo; thati s, the I l l i n ois c ourtdi d not14 N o. 12

- 2511 give effect to th e I rish cou rt’s order. Th e d ecision clears th e wa y f o r De r e k t o r e g i s t e r th e I r i s h o r d e r i n t he Coo k Cou nty Ci r cui t Co ur t an d se ek i ts en fo r ce m en t und erthe U ni f or m A ct, but as f ara s th e r eco rd di scl ose s, he ha s not yet sou gh t th at reli ef. I n the m ean t im e , M a ry has m ove d fo r re consi d er ati on o fthe cour t’ s j uri sdic

ti o na lr ul i ng, a nd tha t m o ti o n i s st ay ed pen di ngthe outco m e o fthes e pr oc eedings. SeeA greed Ord er, Red m ond v. Re dm ond, N o. 11 D 79473 ( Cir cui t Ct. o fCook Cnty . ) ( fi l ed Oct

. 2 2, 2 01 2)

. I fM ary ’ s m o ti o n fo rr ec o nsid er at ion is d en ied , sh e m ay ap p ea l. The upshot o fal lthi s i s that the I l l i noi s c ou rt ’ s j uri sdic

ti o na lde ci si o n do es no t m o o t th i s appe al

. Unw i ndi ng th e d i s tr ict co u rt ’s re tu rn ord er w ill no t in ev ita b ly r e s ul ti n a s pe e dyt r a ns a t l a nt i c r o un d t r i p f o rJ M R. He r e, as i n Cha

fi n , “[t ]h is d isp u te is st ill ver y m u c h aliv e.” C hafin , 133 S. Ct. at10 23. T h e q u est i on o fJ M R’s habi tual re si dence i s co ntest ed, and the cor re ct a nsw erdeter m i nes the pro pr i e t y o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e t urn o r de r . R e v e r s al m ay p rec ip itat e new l egal and prac tical challenges su rro und i ng J M R’s r e- re turn, and i fthe chi l d i s r etur ned to I l l i no i s, he may no t st ayf o rl o ng . H is st atus wi l lde pen d on th e ou tcom e o fthe prese ntl y pendi ng l i ti gat i on

— an d possibl e future l i ti gat i on

— i n the I lli noi s s tat e co urts
. ButM ary unque st i o nabl y ha s ani nt er es t i n the r eturn o f he r so n, an d “h o wev er smal l th at co nc r et e interestm ay be due t o potenti aldi ffi cul ti es i n enf or cem ent, it is n otsim p ly a m at te r ofa c a d e m i c d eb at e, an d is enou gh to s ave thi s ca se fro m m oo tness
. ” Id. at10 26 (al terations and i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ).N o. 12

- 2511 15 B. W as J M R W r ongf ull y Reta i ned i n the Un i t ed Stat es? T h e H ag u e C on ve n tio n “w as ad op te d in 1 98 0 in re sponse to th e p robl em o fi nter nati onalchi l d abducti ons du ring dom est i c di sputes. ” A bbottv. Abbott, 13 0 S

. Ct. 1983 , 19 89 ( 2010 )

. The Conventi on aim s “to deter par e n t s fr o m ab s c o n d i n gwi th th e i rc h i l d r e n a nd cr o ss i ngi nt erna ti o na lb o r der s i n the ho pes o fo bt aini ng a f avo rabl e cust ody dete rm i nati on in a friendli erj uri sdict i on. ” Wa lk er v. Wa lk er, 7 01 F .3d 11 10, 11 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. The Conventi on’ s m ai n pur p os e i s t o “s ec u re th e p ro m p t re tu rn of ch ild re n w ro n g fu lly r emov ed to orre ta i ne d i n” a no th ers i g na to r y S ta te
. Hag ue C on ve n tio n art . 1, sup ra , T. I
. A. S

. No
. 1 1 6 7 0
. Am o ngo ther thi ngs, signatory S tat es com m i t t o have i n pla ce j ud i ci al an d a dmi ni s t r a t i v e r e med i e s f o rthe r e t urn o fc hi l dren tak en fro m the St ate o ftheir habi tualr esi dence to an o th er s i gna to r y S ta te i n v i o l at i o n o fthe l eft-be hi nd par en t’ s custody ri g ht s unde rthe l aw o fthe S ta te o fthe c h ild ’s h ab itu al re sid en c e. Id. ar ts . 3 , 4, 7, 12
. The U ni ted St ate s i m ple m ents the H ague Conventi on vi a the Inter national C hild A bd uc tion R em ed ies A ct (“ICA R A ”), 102 St at. 43 7 ( 1988 ) ( codi fied a t 42 U
. S. C. §§ 1160 1 et seq
. ( 20 06 ) ) ( au th o r i zingfede r alc o ur ts t o e nt er ta i n Hague C onv en tion p etitions). T he cen tral qu estion in an y pe titi on see king th e return of a ch ild u n d er th e H ag u e C on ve n tio n an d IC A R A is w he th erthe chi l d w ho i s the subj ect ofthe peti ti on ha s be en“ wro ng ful l y ” r emov ed o rr et aine d wi th i n the m eani ng o fthe Conventi on. A rt i cl e 3 o fthe Conventi on defi ne s th e co nc epto f“ wro ng ful ” r emov alo rr et en ti o n:16 N o. 12

- 2511 Th e r e mov a lo rthe r e t e nt i o n o fa c hi l d i s t o b e c o ns i dered w rongfu l w he re

— a) i t is in bre a c h o fr i g ht s o fc us t o dya ttr i buted to a per son, an in stituti on[ , ] o r any o therbo dy, ei therj oi n tly or al one, under the l aw o fthe St ate i n wh i c h th e c h i l d wa s h ab i t u a l l y r e s i d e nti mmed i a t e l y b e f o r e the r e mov a lo rr e t e nt i o n; a nd b) at the ti m e of re m ov al or re tenti on[ , ] thos e r i ghts w er e a ctual l y e xerci sed, ei therj oi nt ly or al one, orwould h ave bee n so exer ci sed but f orthe re m o va lo rr et en ti o n. H ag u e C on ve n tio n art . 3, sup ra , T.I.A .S. N o . 1 16 70 . Th is d efi nition refl ects the ba sic prem ise o f th e C onv en tion’s re turn r em edy: Inord er for th e C on ve n tio n to ap p ly[, ] t h e c h ild m us t ha ve b ee n “ habi tu al l y r es i den t i n a Co nt r ac ting St at e im m ed iat ely b e for e a n y b re ac h of cu st od y . . . ri g h ts .” A rt icle 4. In p r ac t i ca l t e r m s , theConve nt i on m ay be invoked only w here the c h il d wa s habitually residen t in a C o ntra ctin g S ta te an d ta k en to or retain ed in a no ther C o ntra ctin g S ta te. Dep ar tm ent o fS tat e, H ague I nter nati onalChil d A bducti on Conventi on; Text and Leg al A nal ysi s, 51 Fed. R eg. 10 ,49 4, 10 ,50 4 (M ar . 26, 1 98 6) (e m p h as is a d d ed ). In ad d iti o n, a c o ur t f ac ed wi tha Hag ue pet iti o n mustk ee p the f o l l o wi ngi mpo r t a ntp r i nc i pl e i n mi nd : A Ha g ue C o nv e nt i o n c a s e i s n o ta c hi l d c us t o dy c as e. R at h er , a H ag u e C on ve n tio n ca se is m or e ak in t o a pr o v i s i onal r e med y

— to d et er m in e if th e c h ild w as wr o ng ful l y r e mov e d o rk e pta wa y fr o m hi s o rN o. 12

- 2511 17

The C onv enti on als o contai ns s ev er al defe nses thatm ay 2 b e a sse rt ed ag a in st a p ri m a fac ie ca se for a r e t u r n o rd er , see (co n tin u ed ...) he rhabi tu alr es i den ce , a nd i fs o , th en to o r derthe c h ild re turned t o that nati on. The m er i ts ofthe child custo dy case

— w hat a pare nt’ s cust ody a nd visita ti on ri ghts shoul d be

— ar e qu es tio ns thatar e r ese rv ed f orthe cour ts ofthe habi tualr esi dence. J AM ES D. G ARBOL I NO, F ED . J UDICIAL C TR ., T HE 1980 H AGU E C ON VENTI ON O N THE C IVI L A S PECTSOF I NT ERNAT I ONAL C HI LD A B DU CT I ON : A G UID E FO R J UDG ES ix ( 2012 ). A c c or d in gly , a H ag u e C on ve n tio n ca se as ks th e fo ll o wi ngquesti ons i n thi s o r der : ( 1) W he n di d the re m o v a l o r r e t e nt i o n o f the c hi l d o c c ur ? ( 2 ) I n wha tS tat e w as the c hi l d habi tual l y r esi dent im m edi ate l y pr i orto th e r emov alo rr et en ti o n? ( 3) W as the r emov alo rr et en ti o n in b r ea cho fthe c us to dy r i g ht s o fthe pe ti ti o ni ng parent und ert h e law o fthe St ate o fthe chi l d’s habi tual r es i den ce ? an d ( 4) W as the pe ti ti o ni ngpa r en t ex er ci sing th o se r i g ht s at th e ti m e o fthe unl awfulr emov alo rr et en ti on? Se eKarkkai ne n v . Koval ch uk, 44 5 F.3 d 280, 28 7 ( 3d C ir. 20 06 ); M o z es v. M o z es , 239 F.3d 1067, 1070 (9th C ir. 20 01 )

. The fi r stt wo que st i o ns a r e f ac tu ali nqui r i es c en te rin g on th e d et er m in at ion of th e ch ild ’s ha b itu a l r e s idence; the seco nd two questi ons i nvol ve both l ega l andf actu al in q u iries regard ing the l eft-behin d pa rent ’s cu stod y ri gh ts un d er the law of the State of the ch il d ’s h ab itu al re sid en c e a n d w h et h er th e p ar en t w as ac tu ally exer ci si ng tho se rig h ts atthe ti m e o fthe re m ova lo r r et en ti o n. 218 N o. 12

- 2511

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 H ag u e Co nvention on the Civil Aspects ofInt ernat ional Ch il d A bd ucti on arts
. 12, 13, 20, O ct
. 25, 1980, T. I. A

. S. N o. 11670, bu t they are notrel evant here

. D erek i nit ial ly al le ged i n his peti ti on that M ary’ s rem oval 3 ofJ M R from Ir el and i n N ovem ber 2007 w as w rongful und er th e H a g u e C o n v e n t i o n, b u th e h a s d r o p p e d th a tc l a i m. 1. An an om al y i n Derek ’s Hague Conv enti on peti ti on W e no t e a tth e o u t s e tth a tth i s i s n o ta c a s e o fwr o ng ful r e m oval

. D e r e k d oes not argue , nor cou ld h e, th at M ary’s mo v e w i th J MRfr o m I r e l a n d t o I l l i n o i s i n N o v e mbe r2 00 7 was wro ng fulunde rthe Hag ue Co nv en ti o n. 3 UnderI r i shl aw o nl y the mothe ri s r ec o g ni zed as the guar dian ofan i l l egitim ate chi l d; I re l and does no t pr esum pti vel y c onferpare ntalr i ghts on unm ar ri ed f at h ers. The “r i ghts ofcusto dy” ati ss u e in a H ague Conventi on peti ti on a re “r i ghts re l ating to the car e o fthe p er son of th e ch i l d a nd, i n pa r ti cul ar, the rightt o de te r m i ne the ch i l d’ s pl ac e o f r es i den ce . ” H ague Con ve nt i o n ar t. 5(a), sup ra , T. I
. A

. S. 11 670. They a ri se “by oper ati on of la w o r by re aso n o fa j ud i ci alo r adm i ni str ati ve deci si on, o r by r ea so n o fan agre ementha vingl eg ale ffec t unde rthe law [of th e c h ild ’s h ab itu al re sid en c e].” Id. ar t. 3. A s o f N o ve m be r2 00 7, whenM ar y m oved w i thJ M R t o the U nited States, Derek h ad no cu stod y r ig h t s to assert a g a i ns tMary’ s r e mov a lo fthe i rs o n fr o m I r e l a nd ; und erI ri sh l aw he was notr eco gnize d as J M R’s l ega l gu ard ian a n d had no right to d irect the ch il d ’sN o. 12

- 2511 19

As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, Der ek’ s vol unt ar y a c knowl edgm en t 4 of p ater nity g av e rise to a p resu m p tion of pa tern ity in Illinois. A fterM ary and JM R m oved to Il li nois , he c ould hav e fil ed an actio n in Illinois state co u rt to p erfect his p ater nity r igh ts, acknow le dg e hi s supp ort obligati on, and ob tai n a deter m ination of custo d y . Instea d , he spe nt y ear s liti g atin g the re cog nition of his pa tern ity, gu ard ian ship , an d cu sto d y r igh ts in Irela nd

. B y f or eg oin g the a v ailab le Illi n o is rem ed ies to es tab lis h j ointcus tody u nd er I ll inoi s law

— thus e s t abl i s hi ng hi s j oi ntr i gh tt o di r e c twhe r e J M R wou l d l i ve

— D erek e nabled M a ry to fix JM R ’s re sid en ce in th e U n ite d St a te s. C f

. K i j ow ska v . Hain es, 46 3 F .3d 5 8 3, 589 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) ( the f ather ’ s f ail ure t o pur s ue ava i l abl e re m edi es a ft erthe m othe r re l oc at ed the ch ild to P ola nd “en ab led [ the child ] to o b t a i n a ha b itua l resid en ce in th e c o u n tr y to w h ic h h er m o th er to o k h er ” ). M ary h ints tha t th e en tire inq u iry cou ld end her e. She su g g ests 5 thatthe only d ate rel evant to the analysi s is N ovem ber 10, 2007, w hen she rem oved J M R from Ir el and , an d b ecaus e her condu ct was no twron gful as ofthatdat e, fur the r ana l ys i s i s unn ec es s ar y. W e dis agr ee , although the point has i ntuit ive f orce. The cas es refer to th e “fi rs ts t ep” i n a Hague pet i t i on

— i n whi c h the c our ti dent i fi es the date ofthe al l eg ed wro ngful r em ovalor re t en t i on

— b e c a u se th e c o u r tm u st d e t e r m i n e th e c h i l d ’s habi t ual r es i denc e “i m m edi at el y bef or e” the al l eg ed r em ovalor (co n tin u ed ...) upbr i ng i ngo rde ci de where h e w o ul d l i ve . S o i t i s no 4 surpri se that Derekdoes notchal l enge M ar y’ s r em ova lo f J M R fro m I re lan d i n N ove m ber20 07. A ssum i ng tha t I re l and w as the c hi l d’s habi tu al res i dence atthatti m e, M ary ’s con ductwas no t wro ng fulunde rthe Hag ue Con ve nt i o n. See, e.g., Whit e v. W hit e, No
. 1 2

- 1 8 3 5 , 2 0 1 3 WL 520 N o. 12

- 2511

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 re te n tio n . H a g u e C o n v en tio n ar t. 3 , sup ra , T. I. A

. S. N o. 11670. In the case of alleg ed w ro ng ful rem ov als, tha t d ate is fairly ea sy t o a s c er t ai n; with a l le ge d wrongful r et en t i ons , ho wever, the a n sw er is n o t a lw a y s cl ea r. S ee J AMES D. G AR BO LI NO , F ED . J U D I CI AL C TR ., T HE 1980 H AGUE C ONV ENTI ON ON THE C IVIL A SP ECTS OF I NTERNATI ONAL C HI LD A BD UC TI ON : A G UI DE F OR J UDGES24 ( 2012). W rongful r et en t i ons typi c al l y oc c ur whena par e n tt a k e s a c h i l d a b r o a d p r o mi s i n g t o r e t u r n wi th t he ch il d and the n reneges on thatprom is e; disputes s om eti m es ar i s e ove r when s uc h a t em por ar y s oj our n r i pen s int o a wron gfu l r e t e n t io n . S ee, e. g., Wal ker v. Wal ker, 701 F. 3d 1110, 1118 (7 th C ir . 20 1 2 ). I n a gi venHague Conve nt i on c as e, an“ab d u cti on” m i ght have o ccu rred onon e ofs eve ra l dat es ; the que s t i on i s al ways w he th e r t h e r e w as any date on w hich a w rongful rem oval or reten tion occu rred

. A cou rt m a y ente rtain the p ossib ility thata wron g ful re m oval occurre d on one date, concl ud e that the chil d’s rem oval on thatdate was not wrong ful, the n m ove on to otherposs ibil itie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt conducted thi s kind of anal ysi s, i n subst ance i fnot i n f orm . The court s ki ppe d o ve r the que s t i ono fJ M R’ s r e m ov a l fr om I r e l a nd , im plic itly concluding that itw as not w rongful, and then m ove d forw ard i n t i m e t o de t er m i ne whena wrongful r et en t i onm i gh th a ve o c c ur r e d. 2284 877, at* 4- 5 ( 4th Ci r. M ay 24, 20 13) ( hol ding that th e m o th er ’ s r emov alo fhe rso n fr o m S wi tz er l an d w as not w ro ngful und erthe H ag u e Convent i on be cause th e c h i l d ’ s f a th e rl a c k e d c u s t o dy r i g h t s u n d e rS wi s s l a w, giv in g her sol e cust ody o fthe chi l d and the excl usi ve au th ority to m ove w ith him to the U nited States).N o. 12

- 2511 21 I nstea d, Derekco ntends thatM ar y w ro ngfully “ re tained” J M R i n the U ni ted S tat es on o r afterM ar c h 30 , 20 11 , w h en sh e failed to ret u rn w ith h im to Irela n d in v i o l a t i o n o fthe I r i s h c o ur t ’ s g ua r di a ns hi p a nd c us t o dy or der

. Thi s i s anunc o nv en ti o na lus e o fthe Hag ue Co nventi on

— o ne tha t r ai se s a th r es ho l d que st i o n abo ut i t s s c o p e . T h e c h i l d

- r e t u r n r e me d y i s a p o t e nta n d i mpo r ta nto ne , b uti ts a ppl i ca ti o n i s l i m i ted, a nd the l i m i ted natur e o f t he r em edy m ust be ke pt i n m i nd to avo i d draw i ng federal c ourt s into the m er i ts ofi nter natio n al c u st od y d isp u te s. S e eKo c h v. Koch , 450 F. 3d 703, 711 ( 7th Cir

. 2006 ) ( “A n acti on und er th e C onventi on and I CA RA i s no t a n act i on t o d et er m i ne the m er i ts of custod y ri gh ts.”). T h e H ag u e C on ve n tio n is an an tia b d u c tio n tre at y ; i t is

“ ‘ no t a t r e a t y o n the r e c o g ni t i o n a nd e nfo r c e ment of [ f or ei gn] deci si ons on cust ody. ’ ” Ba rzi la y v . Barzi l ay, 60 0 F. 3d 912, 921- 22 ( 8th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng El i sa Pére z- Vera, Expl anat o ry R epor ton the19 80 HagueChi l d Ab duc t i on Co n v e n t i on , in H AGUE C ONF ER EN CE ON P RIVATE I NT ’ L L AW, 3 A CT SAN D D OC UMENTS OF THE F OURT EE NT H S E S S I ON, C HI LD A BD UCT I ON 42 6, 43 5 (1 98 2)); see also Koch , 450 F. 3d at 711 ( rec og n izi ng the Pér ez- Vera re portas the offi ci al hi sto ryo fthe H ague Conventi on a nd an a uthor i tat i ve so u rc e of its m ea n in g a n d sc op e); Ho lder v . Ho lder, 392 F. 3d 1009 , 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (sam e). “T he Con ven tion’s proce du re s a re notdesi gn ed to s ett l e inter nati onal cus to d y d is put es , b utr athe rt o r es to r e th e st atus quo pri orto any w ro n gfu lr em ova lo r re tenti on, and to deter par en ts from e ng ag i ngi n int erna ti o na lf o r um s ho ppi ng i n custo dy case s. ” Ka rkk a inen , 44 5 F .3d at28 7; see also22 N o. 12

- 2511

T he Uni f or m Chi l d Cus t ody J ur i s di c t i on and Enfor c em en t 6 A ct (“ U C C J EA ”) , 9 U.L. A

. 657 ( M ast er e d.) ( 1999) , has been adopt ed i n 4 9 s t at es , the Dis t ri c t o f Col um bi a, Guam , an d the U
. S. V ir gin Is lands. S e e id

. Tab le ofJ uris dicti ons, 9 U.L. A

. 114- 1 5 (Su p p . 20 1 2 ). Koch , 45 0 F .3 d at71 1; R uiz v. Tenorio , 392 F. 3d 1247, 12 50 (11 th C ir. 20 04 ); Fri edr ich v. Fr ie drich , 78 F. 3d 1060 , 10 64 (6th C ir. 1996). N o rdo es the Co nv en ti o n c o nt ain r ul es f o rr es o l ving c o mpe t i ngc l a i ms o fj ur i s di c t i o n i n i nt e r na t i o na lc us t o dy st r ug g l es o rpr o ce dur es f o ro bt ai ningr ec o g ni ti o n a nd en f o r ce m en t o ff o r ei g n j udg m en ts o ro r der s g o ve r ni ng ch i l d c us to dy. As we ha ve e xpl aine d, tho se rul es a nd p roced ure s are foun d in state law un d er th e U niform C h ild -C u st od y Ju ri s d ict ion an d E n for c em en t A c t. See 750 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 36 /1 10 et seq
. ( th e U ni f or m A ct, as ad op te d in Illin ois ); i d. § 36 /1 05 ( gov er ni ng the i nter nati o na la spe ct s o fthe Act )

. The c o ur t’ s inqu iryi n a 6 H ague peti ti on i s l i m i ted to the m erits o f the abducti on c l a i m; th e C o n v e n t i o n i s n o ta v e h i c l e f o rr e s o l v i n gc o mpet i ngj ur i sdi ct i o na lo rmer i ts c l ai m s i n the unde r l y i ng c u st od y d isp u te
. C

f. Ruiz , 392 F. 3d at 1250
. H er e, Dere k s eem s t o be using the H ague Conventi on as a s ubsti tute f oran a c tio n i n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt und er the Unif or m A ct t o enf or ce hi s n ew ly re cogni zed cu stod y ri gh ts p u r su an t to the Iri sh cou rt’s order. P er h ap s t h is in vo c at ion of th e C on v e n tio n ’s re m ed y is per m i ss ibl e unde r an expa ns i ve unde r st an di ngo fthe ter m “r et en ti on, ” but w e hav e o ur doubts

. A l thoughN o. 12

- 2511 23 De r e kh a s wo n a l e g a lv i c t o r y i n I re l a nd a nd h i s c us t o dy ri ghts ar e no w r eco gni zed i n the cour ts ofhi s cou n tr y, i t’ s ha r d t o se e h o w M ary ’ s r efus alt o c o m pl y wi ththe I r i s h c o u r t ’ s o r d e ri s , w i th o u tmo r e , a “ r e t e n t i o n ” o fJ MR in the sense m eant by the Conve nti on. Dere k’ s peti ti on thus pr es en ts a thr es hol d que st i o n: I s a ch an g e i n o ne p ar e n t’s cus tod y ri gh ts en ou gh to m ake th e othe r’s parent’ s co nti nued physi calcusto dy ofthe c h ild a pu tati ve w ro ngful “r ete nti on” und er t h e Convent i on? S tat ed d ifferently, d oes th e pa rent w ith p hy sical custod y of a chi l d com m i t a wron gfulr ete nti on

— col l oqui al l y, an “abduc ti o n”

—by re negi n g on a prom i se, m ade under oath, to o bey a newlyente re d custody or der in f avo r of the o therpare nt? W e a ske d fo r supp l em entalbr i efi ng o n thi s quest i on a s we l l, b u tth e p a r t i e s s e e m t o h a v e m i ss ed o u rp o i n t
. As far as w e c an t e l l , th is is a qu es tio n of first im p re ss ion in th i s ci r cui t an d i n mos t o th er ci r cui ts a s wel l

. The E igh th C irc u it h as co m e c los es t t o a d d re ss in g t h e is su e. In Barzi l ayI sr ael ipare nts l i ved w i th the i r thre e chi l dren i n M i sso urif orse veral yea rs . 60 0 F
. 3d at 914- 15. They d ivo rc ed an d th e fa th er ret u rn ed t o Isr ae l. Id. a t9 1 5
. On a v is it to I srael, the m oth er and three ch il d ren w ere hai l ed i nto an I sr ael ico urt, and as a c on d i ti on o f all ow ing the m to return to the U nited States , the cou rt enter ed a c onse nt j ud gm ent p rovi ding that I sr aelwas th e st i pul at ed habi tu alr es i den ce o fthe c hi l dr ena nd giv in g t h e fa th er c u st od y rig h ts
. Id

. Af te rr eturni ngt o the U ni ted S tat es, the m othe r re fused to se nd the chi l dren b ac k. Id

. The f atheras se rt ed that herr efusalco nsti tuted a wro ng fulr et en ti o n, pl aci ngg r ea t emphas i s o n the24 N o. 12

- 2511

Barzi l ay thu s re fused to g iv e p reclu sive effect to th e ha b itua l- 7 re s i denc e det er m i nation i n the I s ra el i c our t ’ s c ons en tj udg- (co n tin u ed ...) Is r ae li cou rt ’s c on se n t jud gm en t, i d. a t9 1 6 , 9 1 9 ; h e al so re l i ed o n a n e a r l i e rs t i pu l a t i o n i n the Mi s s o ur idi v o rce proce edi ng tha t th e enti re f am i l y would r etur n to I sr ael if eith er p ar en t d id , id

. The Ei g hth Ci r c ui tfi r s ta ddr e s s e d the que s t i o n of ha bitua l reside nc e and affirm ed the d istri ct c ou rt’s fi nd i ng tha t the ci rcum sta nces ofthe chi l d re n ’ s l i ves c lea rly es ta b lish ed M i s s o u r i as th eir h om e. Id. at9 15
. The c ou r t t h en rejec te d th e fa th er ’s re lian c e o n th e Isr ae li conse nt j ud gm ent a nd the M i sso urir ep atri ati on s ti pu l ati on, not i ng tha t a l though he chara cte ri zed thes e a gr eem en ts as “p ro sp ec tiv e s tip u lat ion s o f h ab itu al re sid en c e,” they w er e “ i n f act custo dy decre es, ” an d the f atherwas “tr yi ng to use the Hague C on ve n ti on a s a ve hi cl e t o enf or ce hi s cust ody r i gh ts [] si m plybyr el abel i ng the m as sti pu l ati ons ofh abi tualr esi dence. ” Id. at 921. The cou rt expla i ned the probl em thi s way: H av in g ob ta in ed a fav or ab le jud gm en t [ i n th e Isr ae li cou rt], [ th e father] the n tu rned to the fed eral court s e e k i ngenf o r c e men to fh i s n e wl y mi nt e d c us t o dy rig h ts th ro u gh [a H ag u e C on ve n tio n ] p et itio n . Th is cour se ofl i ti gat i on noto nl y b etr ays a fund am ental m i sund er sta nd i ng of the H ague Conventi on, b u t [is ] a l s o p r e c i s e l y th e s o r to fi n t e r n a t i o n a lf o r um shopping the Conve nti on s eek s t o preve nt. Id. at92 2. 7N o. 12

- 2511 25

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 m en t. U n d e r I C A R A A m erica n co u rts m u st giv e full f aith and cr edit to the H ague C onv enti on d ete rm inat ions ofother A m erica n cou rts, state or fed era l, b u t on ly w he n th ose d eterm inatio n s are r endered “p ursuant t o the Co nvention, i n an a c t i on brough tun de r [ I CARA a nd the Co nv e nt i on ]
. ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 11603( g). This speci al precl usi on rule d oes not, on it s f ace, affi rm ativ ely a u tho rize A m erica n co u rts to ap p ly re s j u d icata p ri n ci p le s to th e H a g u e C o n v en tio n d e t e rm in a tio n s o f f or eign cou rts; it’ s an o p en qu estion w he the r it p recl u des appl i c at i on ofr es ju dicata princi ples to f orei gn H ague C onv enti on d ete rm ina tio n s. S ee H old er v . Hold er, 305 F. 3d 854, 864- 65 ( 9th Cir

. 20 02 )

. Apply i ng g en er al pr ec l us i on d octri ne t o Hague Convention deter m inat ions b y forei gn courts rai se s com plex com ity co nsid era tion s in th e c on text of a trea ty th at itself t ar ge t s in t er nat i ona l f or um s hoppi ng. Der ekha s no tr ai s ed the p reclu sion issue o r oth erw ise relied on the Irish cou rt’ s d eterm inat i on thatM ar y’ s r eten t i on ofJ M R i n I l l i noi s vi ol at ed the H ag u e C o nvention. Accordingly, he has f orfei ted the i ss ue. S ee, e.g ., Sim m on s v . G il lesp ie, 712 F. 3d 1041 , 1041 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 1 3 ); M ar cu s v . S u ll iva n , 9 2 6 F .2d 60 4 , 61 4 (7t h C ir . 19 9 1 ). The F o ur thCi r cui t’ s r ec en t d eci si o n in Whit e i s a l so ins t r u c tive. Th ere, a hu sba nd and w ife li ving in Sw itzerl and w i th the i r son o b tained an or der o fl ega lse parat i on that gave custo dy ofthe chi l d t o th e m othe r and l i m i ted vis ita tio n righ ts to th e fa th er . White, 2 0 1 3 WL 2 2 8487 7, at* 3- 4. The mothe rthe n moved w ith he rs o n t o the U ni ted S ta tes
. The f atherfi l ed a Hague Conventi on peti ti on s eek i ng r etur n ofthe c h il d, and i n the m eanti m e, the S w i ss cour t a dj usted i ts or deri ng o fpare ntalr i ghts, gi vi ng the fa therl ega lcusto dy and the m othe r vi si tat i on26 N o. 12

- 2511 rig h ts on ly. Id. The di st r ict c our t co nc l ude d tha t th e m othe r’ s re m ova l of the chi l d fro m Switz er l and w as n ot wro ng fulb ec ause sh e ha d the s o l e r i g hto fc us to dy, a nd th e F o ur thCi r cui t affi r m ed. The courtno te d tha t atthe ti m e o fr e mov a l, the f a the rh a d o nly v i s i t a t i o n r i g hts, w hich a r e ins uffici en t to sup p ort the C onv en tion’s return re m ed y. Id. at * 3- 5 ( expla i ni ng tha t the vi si tat i on ri ghts

— k no wn as “ r i g ht s o fa cc es s” unde rthe Con ve nti on

— are nota basis f or the retu rn r e m ed y). Th e cou rt al so hel d that the S w i ss cour t’ s la tercustody o rder

— i ssued tw o yea rs afterthe chi l d’s re m ova lto the U ni ted St ate s

— w as ine ffec tiv e to ren d er th e re m ov al “ w ro n gfu l” u n d er th e C on ve n tio n . Id. at * 6- 7. A l though the Fo urth C irc u it d id n ots ep ar at ely a d d re ss t h e is su e o f “re te n tio n,” th e co ur t di d no te tha t “[ S ta te] sign ato r i es [ to the Co nv e nti on] a g r e e tha to r de r s c l a i mi ngt o a dj us tc us t o dy ar ra ngem ents a

fterrem ov al or ret en t i o n d o n otty p ica lly affect ri ghts und erA rt i cle 3 o fthe Conventi on. ” Id. at *6 (em p ha sis add ed ). A l though o ur ca se i s no t pe rfe c tl y a nal ogo us to either Barzi l ay or White, the bas i c po i nti s th e sa m e. The H ague Conventi on t ar get s inter nati onalchi l d abduct i o n; i ti s n o ta j ur i s di c t i o n- a l l o c a t i on o rful l

- f a i th- a nd

c re d it t re at y. It d oe s n otp ro vid e a r em ed y for th e re c og n itio n and enf or cem ent o ff or ei gn cust ody o rder s o r proce du re s forvind i c at ing a wronged par ent’ s cust ody r i ghts m ore gene rall y. T hos e rules are pro vide d i n th e U niform Ch i l d-C ustody J uri sdic ti on a nd Enfo rce m ent Act. Rather than a p ply i ng to the Cook County Ci rcui t Cour t for en f o r cem en t o fthe I r i shc us to dy o r derunde rthe U ni f or m A ct, Dere k s ought to enf or ce hi s newlydecl ar edN o. 12

- 2511 27

cu stod y ri gh ts via a H agu e p etition by treating M ary’s re fu sa l to co m plywith the I ri sh co urt’ s o rderas a w ro ngful “r et en tion” ofthei r son i n the U ni ted S tat es. B ut the con cep ts of r em oval and r e t e n tion can be un d ersto od onl y by re fer ence to the chi l d’s habi tual res idence; a l ega la dj ustm ent o fa parent’ s cust ody r i ghts does not by i tse l fgi ve ris e to an abducti on cl ai m . “The dete rm i nati o n o fa c hi l d’ s habi tu alr es i den ce i s si g ni fi ca nt b ec au se w ro n gfu l r e m o va l ca n oc c u r on ly if th e c h ild h as be en ta ke n aw ay f r o m h i s o r h er h ab itu al re sid en c e.” G ARBOL I NO, F ED . J UDICIAL C TR ., sup ra , at 41. A fu n d am en ta l p re m ise of t h e H ag u e C on ve n tio n is that the in te re sts o fchi l dren ar e be st ser ved w hen they re m ai n i n t h eir co u n tr y of h ab itu al re sid en c e w h ile th eir parents r eso l ve conte st ed custo dy questi ons i n the cour ts of that cou nt ry. W he n a ch il d i s tak e n from i ts cou nt ry ofhabi tualr esi dence, t h e left-behind pare nt m ay i nvoke the Conve nti on’ s r etur n re m edy to r est or e t h e f actual st atus quo

— in o rdi naryl anguage, to br i ng an abducted chi l d hom e. But a par ent m ay n otu se the Conve nti on to a lterthe chi l d’s re si denti alst atus b as ed o n a l ega l dev el o pm en t i n the pa r en t’ s f av o r . The a va i l ab i l i tyo fthe re turn r em edy depends on the chi l d’s habi tualr esi dence because the “r ete nti on o f a chi l d i n the sta te ofi ts habi tu alr es i den ce i s no t wro ng fulunde rthe Co nv en ti on. ” Barzi l ay, 60 0 F .3d at9 1 6 . O r as th e Se c on d C irc u it pu t i t: A pet i ti o ne rc anno t i nv o k e th e pr otecti o n o fthe H ague Con vent i o n un l es s th e ch i l d t o who m the peti ti on r el ate s i s “ habi tual l y r esid en t” i n a S tat e28 N o. 12

- 2511 si gnato ryto the Conventi on a nd has been re m ove d to or reta i ned i n a di ffer ent S tat e. The peti ti onerm ust th en s h ow t h at t h e re m ov al or ret en tio n is “w ro n gfu l.” G itter v. G itter, 396 F.3d 124 , 130 (2d Cir. 2005). A ccor dingl y, ev er y Hague Conventi on peti ti on turns o n th e t h re sh old d et er m in at ion of th e c h ild ’s h ab itu a l res idence; al lo therH ague deter m i nati ons fl ow fr om that deci si on. I fa chi l d h as n ot been m ove d fr om i ts habi tual re si dence, ther e i s no “l eft-behi nd ” par ent with gr ounds to com pla i n abo ut the m ove , and i t m ake s no se nse t o speak i n t er m s o fo r der i ng th e ch i l d’ s “r etur n. ” I n tha t si tu at i o n, r el i efunde rthe Hag ue Co nv en ti o n mustb e de n i e d wi th o ut furth er i nq uiry into w he th er th e pet iti onin g pa rent ’s cus to dy r i g ht s ha ve bee n br ea ch ed o rwhethe rthe pe ti ti o ni ngpa r en t was a ctua l l y e xe r ci singtho se r ight s atthe re l evantti m e.

2. J MR’s habi tualresi den ce Wi th th e s e b a c k g r o u n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g s i n p l a c e , we p ro c ee d to th e d isp u te d qu es tio n of JM R ’s h ab itu al res idence. Our r evi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on i s s ubj ect to a s pli t s tandard o frevi ew ; fi nd i ngs offactare re vi ew ed f o r cl ea r er r o r, i ss ue s o f l aw ar e r ev i ewe d d e nov o, a nd “[ t] he u l ti m ate deter m i nati on o fhabi tualr esi dence i s a m ix ed qu es tio n of law an d fac t t o w h i c h w e w ill ap p ly deno vo r evi ew . ” Koch , 45 0 F
. 3d at 710. Th er e is n o rea l disp u te a bout the hi sto ri calf acts ; thi s a pp ealtur ns o n the ul ti m ate deter m i nati on o fJ M R’s habi tualr esi dence. The Conventi on does notdefi ne t h e term “habi tual r es i den ce . ” Ear l y co ur ts f ac ed wi th H ague pe ti ti o nsN o. 12

- 2511 29 soughtto avo i d over com plic ating the i ssue ofhabi tual re sidence with l aye rs o fr i gi d doctrine. A n Engli sh op in ion w id el y cit ed in A m er ica n co u rt s e x p re ss ed th is aspi ra ti on ni cel y: “I ti s g r e a t l y t o b e h o pe d tha tthe c o ur t s wi l lr e si st the t em ptati on t o devel op detai l ed and re stri cti ve ru les as to h ab itu al res id en c e, w h ich m igh t m ak e it as t echni cala ter m o far t a s co m m on l aw dom i ci l e. T h e fa c ts an d circ u m st an c es of ea c h c as e s h ou ld c o nt i nu e to b e a s s e s s e d wi tho utr e s o r tt o p r e s umptio n s o r p re -su p p os itio n s.” R e B a tes ( 1 9 8 9 ) , N o . C A 1 2 2 / 8 9 ( Hi g h C t
. o fJ u s t i c e , F a m. Div. , E ng. ) , 1989 W L 1683 783 ( quoti ng A LBE RT V EN N D ICEY & J OHN H UM PH REY C ARLI LE M O RRIS, T HE C ON F L I CT SOF L AW S 16 6 (1 1t h ed . 198 7)); see Whit ing v. K rassn er, 391 F. 3d 54 0, 54 6 (3d C ir. 2 00 4) (c itin g q u ot ed p as sa ge ); Si l ve r m an v. Si l ve r m an , 3 12 F.3d 91 4, 916 (8th Cir. 2002) (sam e); Fri edr ich v . F ri edr ich , 98 3 F
. 2d 1396 , 14 01 ( 6th Ci r. 19 93) ( sa m e)

. W e el ab o r at ed o n thi s po i nti n K ijo w ska v. Ha ines : The deter m i nati on o f“habi tualr esi dence” is to be m ade on the basi s of the eve ry day m eaning of thes e w or ds ra ther than the l ega l m eani ng that a p ar ti cul ar j ur i sdi ct i o n a tt ac he s to the m , a s o th er wi se f o r um shop p in g would co m e in by the b ack door

— each con test an t woul d s ee ka f o r um tha t woul d de fi ne “h abitu al r esid en ce” in th e con testa nt ’s f avor. 463 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2006). A c c or d in gly , w e in te rp re t t h e p h ra se “h ab itu al re sidence” in acco rdance w ith “the o rdi naryand natura l30 N o. 12

- 2511

m eani ng o fthe tw o w or ds i t co ntai ns, as a quest i on o ff act to b e decided byr efer en ce t o a l lthe c i r cumst an ce s o fa ny parti cul arcas e. ” M o z es , 23 9 F. 3d at 1071 ( i nter nalquotat i on m a rk s a n d alt er at ion s o m itt ed ); see also Nor i n d e rv. Fu entes , 657F. 3 d 5 2 6, 53 4 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); Kij owska , 46 3 F .3d at58 6; Koch , 45 0 F
. 3d at 712. D eterm i ni ng a chi l d’s habi tualr esi dence t h u s re quir es an as ses sm ent o f the obse rv abl e f acts o n the gr ound, not an i nquir y into the c hi l d’s orpare nt’ s l ega lst atus i n a pa rt icu larpl ace. Only a fter habi tu alr es i den ce i s det er m i ne d doe s ane xami na ti o n o fc us to dy r ights c o m e i nt o pl ay ; t r ea ting th e qu estion of hab itu al r esid en ce as a legal inq uiry w oul d m i sco nstr ue the Conventi on a s a custo dy-r i ghts enf or cem ent t re aty
. Underthi s co m m o ns en se a nd f ac t-ba se d ap p ro ac h, we think it cl ea rtha t as o fM ar ch3 0, 2 01 1, whenthe alle ge d w r on gfu l ret en tio n oc c u rre d , JM Rh ab itu ally reside d i n Il lin ois and had f or som e tim e. H e w as born i n I l l i noi s, and except f orse ve n a n d a hal fm onths of h is in fan c y, h e liv ed co n t i n u ou sly in Illin ois w ith on ly per i o di c, b r i efv i si ts t o I r el an d. By M ar ch 3 0, 20 11 , he h ad sp en t m or e t h an th re e o f h is fou r ye ar s in Il lin ois

— approxi m ate l y 8 0% o fhi s y oun g life. I t i s t rue that the l ength ofti m e a chi l d has spent in o n e place i s no t di s po s i t i v e a nd mus tb e c o ns i de r e d wi th c a r e . We ha ve re c og n ize d th at “[t ]h e le n gt h of th e c h ild ’s re sid en c e in th e c o u n t r y o fo n e o fth e p a r e n t s c a nno t b e d e c i s i v e . [ A] par en t ca nno t cr ea te a ne w ‘ habi tu alr es i den ce ’ b y the w ro n gfu l rem ov al a n d se q u es te rin g of a ch ild . Th at w ou ld i nvi te abducti on. ” Kij owks ka , 463 F. 3d at 587( i nter nal qu otation m arks an d citations om itted ). H ere, how ever, M ar y’ s r em ova lo fJ M R fro m Ir el and w as not w ro ngful, soN o. 12

- 2511 31 giving w eight to th e sub stan tial d u r a t io n of th e ch il d ’s r es i den ce i n the U ni te d S ta te s do es no t unde r m i ne th e pur po se s o fthe Co nv en ti o n. Inad d itio n to t h e le n gt h of tim e JM Rh ad sp en t in th e Uni te d S ta te s pr i o rt o the I r i shc o ur t’ s orde r, the eve ry day detai l s o fhi s l i fe co nfi rm thatI l l i noi s was h om e. JM Rh ad fre q u en t con ta c t w ith h is ex te n d ed fam ily i n I l l i noi s; he re cei ved re gul ar car e fro m an I l l i noi s pedi atr i ci an and an I l l i noi s denti st; he went to d ayca re , pre s c ho o l, a nd c hu r c h i n Or l a nd P a r k ; h e h a d n e i g hb or hood fr i en ds an d pl ay ed o n a c hi l dr en ’ s ba seba l lt ea m i n the ar ea. The di str i ct c ourtcr edi ted thi s e vi dence: “[ T]hes e f act s, c ouple d w i th the passa ge ofnear l y three

- and-ah alf yea rs of ver y ear l y chi l dh oo d, sugge st that J M R is h ap p y a n d w ell-a dj u st ed to h is life in Il lin ois .” I n co nt r as t, o n M ar ch 30 , 20 11 , J M R’ s ti es to I re l an d we r e t e nu o us . As o f tha t da t e , he ha d s pe nto nl y a smal lfr ac ti o n o fhi s li fe in I r el an d

— not m or e than 20%

— an d m u c h of th at tim e w as p rior t o h is i ni ti almove t o I l l i no i s when he was a n inf an t. Af te rthe m o ve , whi cho cc ur r ed when he was noty ete i g ht m on th s o ld , JM Rsp en t o n ly a b ou t t en an d a h alf se par at ed wee k s i n I r el an d an d th en pr i m ar i l y f or the pu rpos e o fat tendi ng co urt proce edi ngs. A l though D er ek and his exte nd ed f am i l y l i ve i n I re l and, these ti es, wi th o u tmo r e , d o n o tt r a n s l a t e t o h ab i t u a lr e s i d e n c e . As ofM ar ch 30, 20 11, any ob j ec tive ob ser vero fthe f acts o fJ M R’ s ev ery dayl i fe woul d no t ca l lI r eland the chi l d’s hom e. The dis tr i ct c ourtr eco gni zed thatJ M R’s l i fe was firm ly sit u at e d i n I llin ois bu t h eld th at h is re sid en c e in32 N o. 12

- 2511 the Unite d St ate s w as onl y “tem pora ry ” and “co nti ngent” b as ed on th e e vid en c e o f th e la st sh ar ed int en t o f h is p aren ts abou t w h ere he w ou ld li ve. Th e last ti m e M ary an d Der ek agr eed on anythi ng, they agr eed that th eir son shoul d be r ai sed i n I re l and; thi s par entali ntent to ra ise JM Rin Ire lan d a n d h i s p re se n c e t h er e d u rin g h is fi rs t s eve n m onths w er e e nough to es tabl i sh hi s habi tual re si den c e in Irel and as o fthe f al lo f20 07. W hen in early N o vem ber 2007M ary aban d one d the cou p le’ s ea rlier p lan s a n d relo c at ed w ith JM Rto Il lin ois , sh e d id so un il at e r a lly, and the d istri ct cou rt chos e to disregard her unil ate ra li ntent. The co urt hel d that M ary “ w as ful l y a war e” tha t J M R’ s st ayi n I l l i no i s depe nde d o n the ou tc om e o fthe I ri sh cust ody pro ceedi ngs, so her“ho pes and desi re s” about J M R’s l i fe were i neffecti ve to est abl i sh hi s habi tualr esi dence i n the U ni ted S tat es. The dist ri ct cour t’ s re l i ance on the parents ’ l as t share d i ntent w as m i spl aced, tho ugh p er haps und er sta nd abl e. M an y Ha g ue Co nv e nt i o n c a s e s e mpha s i z e the l a st shared inte nto fthe pa r en ts a s ani m po r ta ntf ac to ri n the an aly sis of a c h ild ’s h ab itu al re sid en c e . B u t t h e h ab itu alr es i den ce i nqui r y r emai ns a fle xibl e o ne , s en si ti ve t o the uniq ue ci rcum sta nces ofthe case and i nfo rm ed by co m m o n s en se . The pa r en ts ’ l as t sh ar ed i nt en t i s o ne f ac t among o th er s, an d i nde ed m ay be a ve ry i m p or ta nt fac t in so m e c as es . B u t itis n ota u n iform ly a p p lica b le “te st” f ordeter m i ni ng habi tualr esid ence, as the dist ri ct cour t s eem ed to thi nk. N ot al lci rcui ts agr ee on th e ro l e o r si gni fi cance of parenta l i ntent i n re sol vi ng habi tual

- re si dence questi ons.N o. 12

- 2511 33 I n o ne o fthe e ar l i es t Am er i ca n a ppl i ca ti o ns o fthe H agu e C onv en tion, th e Six th Circu it held th at “[t]o determ i ne the habi tualr esid ence, the cour t m ust focus on the c hi l d, not the par ents, and e x am i ne past experi ence, not future i ntenti ons. ” Fri edr ich , 983 F.2d at14 01 . In Fr i e dr i ch an A m er i can w om an m ar ri ed a Ger m an m an a nd the y h a d a s o n. Whe n the c hi l d wa s a ye a ra nd a hal f, she separ at ed fro m herhusband and m ove d w i th th e ch i l d fr o m Ger m an y to th e Uni te d S ta tes w itho utthe f athe r ’ s k no wled ge o rc o ns en t. In the e ns ui ng H ague Conventi on pro ceedings, she cl ai m ed that her son habi tual l y r esi ded i n the U ni ted S tat es si m p l y b ecause sh e w an te d to r a i s e h im th er e, ev en th ou gh th e c h ild ha d been born in G erm an y and had sp en t his ent ire li fe pri orto r em ova lther e. The co urt rej ecte d her ar gum ent: Allo fthe f ac to r s l i st ed byM r s. F r i edr i ch per ta i n to the future. M or eov er, theyr efl ect th e inten tio ns ofM rs . Fr i edri ch; i t i s the habi tualr esi dence ofthe c h ild th at m u st be d et er m in ed . M rs . Fried ric h u n d ou b te d ly est abl i shed ti es between T h om as and the Un i ted St ate s a nd m ay w el lhave i nt e nde d f or T h om as to m ove to the U ni ted St ate s at som e ti m e i n th e futur e. Butb efo r e M r s. F r i edr i chr emov ed Tho m as t o the U ni ted S tat es w i thout the know l edge o r conse nt o f M r. F r i e d ric h, Th om as h ad res id ed ex c lu siv ely in G er m an y. Any f

ut urepl ans thatM rs. Fr i e dr i ch hadf or Thom as t o resi de i n theU nite d States are ir re le vant to ouri nq ui ry. Id. ( em p ha ses ad d ed ). So the Si xth Cir cui t f ocuse s on habitu al res i dence fro m the chi l d’s perspect i ve, dow nplay i ng par entali ntent.34 N o. 12

- 2511 See i d. T h e T h ird an d E ig h th C irc u its h av e g en er ally follo w ed su it. Se e, e . g. , Fed er v . E va ns-F eder, 63 F. 3d 217, 22 4 (3 d C ir. 19 95 ) ( “ [A ] ch ild ’s h ab itu al re sid en c e is th e pl ac e wher e he o r sh e ha s be en phy si ca ll y pres en t f oran a m ount o fti m e su fficient f oracc l i m ati zati on a n d w hich has a ‘d egree of settled p urp ose’ f r o m t he ch i l d’s pe rs pe ct i ve . . . . [ A] det er m i na ti o n o fwhethe ra ny parti cul ar pla ce sat i sfi es thi s sta nd ar d m ust f oc us on the chil d a n d c o n s i s t s o fa n a n a l y s i s o fth e c h i l d ’ s c i r c u msta nces i n t h at pla ce a nd the parents ’ pre sent, shar ed int e nt ions .
. . . ” (em p ha ses ad d ed )) ; Barzi l ay , 600 F.3d at 918 (8th C ir. ) (“Th e ‘ s e t t le d pu rp ose’ of a f ami l y ’ s m o ve to a new co unt r y i s a ce nt r ale l emento fthe habi tualr esi dence i nquir y. . . . [ T]he set tl ed purpose m ust be f

r om thec hi l d’s pe rs pe ct i ve, al though par ental i nt e n ti s a l s o t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t
. ” ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ))

. On the other hand , the N i nth Cir cui t e m phasi zes the p a r e nt s ’ p e r s pe c t i v e , e xp l a i ningi n i t s i nfl ue nt i al o pi ni o n in M o z es th at the c oncept ofhabi tualr esi dence i s ba sed o n th e “s et tl ed purpose” to l i ve i n a par ti cul ar pla ce. 23 9 F
. 3d at 1074
. I t i s no t the chi l d’s p urpose that m att er s, however

. “[ T]he i nten tio n orpurpose w hi ch has to be tak en i nto acco unt i s that ofth e perso n or p er so n s e n ti t l e d to fix t h e p lac e o f th e c h ild ’s re sidence”

— u su ally , th e p ar en ts
. Id. a t 1076 ( i nter nalquotati on m ar ks om i tte d). W hen pare nt s j oi ntl y intend to ra i se a chi l d in a p l ace and actual l y l i ve ther e, that p lace becom es th e ch ild ’s habitu al r esid en ce. Th e ch il d ’s habi tualr esi dence m ay change l ate r i fth e par ents m ut ua ll y i nt en d to aban d on th e residen ce in favor ofaN o. 12

- 2511 35

new o ne, but onl y a sha red i ntent w i l l do; th e u n il ate ra l in te n t o f a sin gle p ar en t w ill no t. Id. at10 75- 77. Thi s i s no t to s ay th atthe Ni nth Ci r cui t i g no r es the chi l d’s perspect i ve enti re l y. In so m e ci rcum sta nces “a ch i l d’ s l i fe m ayb ecome s o fi r m l y e m be dded i n the new co untry as to m ake i t hab itu allyr esi dent eve n th o ug h the r e be lingeri ngpa r en ta li nt en ti o ns t o the c o ntr ar y. ” Id. at10 78 . B ut “in the abse nce o fse ttl ed parent al i ntent, co urts sho uld be slow to i nfe r fro m such co nt ac ts th at an ea r l i er habi tu al r es i den ce ha s be en aba ndoned.” Id. at10 79 . A co u rtsh ou ld infe r a c h a n ge in habi tu al res i dence onl y where “the obj ecti ve f acts poi nt unequ ivo c al l y t o a per son’ s o rdi naryo r habi tual re si dence b ei ng i n a par ti cul arpl ace” ; thati s, wh en th e c o u rt “can say w ith con fi d en ce th at th e ch il d ’s re l ati ve att achm ents to the tw o countr i es have changed to th e p oin t where re quir i ng r etur n to the or i gi nal f o r um woul d no w be t an ta m o untt o t ak i ngthe c hi ld o ut of the fam il y and social en vir onm en t in w hich i ts li fe has deve l oped. ” Id. at10 81 ( i nter nalquotat ion m ar ks om itted ). A m aj or i ty ofthe ci rcui ts have prefer re d the N i nth Cir cui t’ s a pp ro ach and adopted the so- cal l ed “M o z es fr a mewo r k

. ” S ee G itter, 396 F.3d at 131 ( 2d Cir. ); M a x w el l v. M axw el l , 5 88 F
. 3d 24 5, 2 51 ( 4th Ci r . 2 009); R uiz , 39 2 F
. 3d at 12 52 ( 11th Cir

. )

. W e t oo have “a dopted a v er sio n of th e a n aly sis se t o u t b y t h e N in th C irc u it i n M o z es . ” N o rind er, 65 7 F
. 3d at 534 ( ci ti ng Ko ch, 450 F. 3d at 71 5). C o n v e n t ion al w isd om th u s re c og n ize s a sp lit b e t w e e n th e c i r c u i t s th a tf o l l o w M o z es and those thatuse36 N o. 12

- 2511

a m ore child-cen tric ap p r o a c h , bu t w e thin k the differ ences ar e not as gr eat as they m i ght see m . A l though th e Th ird, Sixth, and E ig h th Circu its focu s on th e ch il d ’s per spe ct i ve , the y c o ns i derpa r en ta li nt en t, t o o . In Fed er the Th i r d Ci r c ui t o b s e r v e d tha t the i nqui r y i nt o a ch i l d’ s habi tu alr es i den ce “ m us t f o cus o n the c hi l d a nd c on sis ts of an an aly sis of th e c h ild ’ s c irc u m st an c es in that pla ce an d t hepare nts ’pre s e nt, s hare d i nt e nt i ons r egar di ng t he i rc hi l d’s pre s e nc ethe re . ” 6 3 F
. 3 d a t2 2 4 ( e mp h as is a d d ed ). Fed errev er se d th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s h ab itu alre si dence deter m i nati on precise l y b ecause the dist ri ct co ur t had g i ve n ins uffi ci en t at te nt i o n t o the i nt en ti o ns of on e o f th e p ar en ts
. See i d. Si m i l ar l y, i n th e E i ghth Cir cui t, “[ t] he ‘ set tl ed purpose’ o fa f am i l y’ s m ove to a new co untry i s a cent ra lel em ent o f the habi tual re si dence i nquir y. . . . [T ]he se ttl ed purpose m ust be fro m th e c h i l d ’ s p er sp ec tiv e, although pa re ntal i nte nt is al s o take n in t o ac co unt
. ” Barzi l ay, 60 0 F.3d at 91 8 (e m p h as is ad d ed ). The s ame i s tr ue o n the o th ers i de. Al th o ug h the M o z es fr amewor kf o cu ses o n the s ha r ed i nt en t o fthe pa r e nt s , the c hi l d’ s “ a c c l i mat i z a t i o n” i n a c o un t r y h as an im p or ta n t ro le t o p lay . In d ee d , th e N in th C irc u it ex pl aine d i n M o z es that“a chi l d’s l i fe m ay beco m e s o fi r m l y e m be dded i n th e ne w co unt r y a s to make i t habi tu
al l y r esi dent eve n though there be l i nger i ng par ental i ntenti ons to the contr ar y. ” 239 F. 3d at 1078. W e h ave em phasi zed thatthe M o z es a ppr o ac h i s “fl ex ibl e” a nd takes accou nt of “th e re ali ties ofchildren ’s and f am il y’s l i v e s de s pi t e the p a r e nt ’ s h o pe s f o rthe futur e. ” K och , 450 F. 3d at 715- 16.N o. 12

- 2511 37 I n substa nce, al lci rcui ts

— ours i nc l ud ed

— consi der both parent al i ntent and th e ch il d ’s accli m atization, differ i ngo nl y i n th ei re m pha si s. The c r ux o fdi sa g r ee m en t is h ow m u c h w eig h t t o giv e o n e o r t h e o th er , esp ec ially w h er e t h e e vid en c e c on flict s. See Ka rkk a inen , 44 5 F
. 3d at 297 ( describi ng the di sag reem ent a m ong the c i rcui ts as a di ffer en c e ofo pini on about how to “wei gh [ parenta l i ntent and the chi l d’s accl i m atizat i on] ag ai nst e ach o ther i ftheyco nfl i c t[]” ). W e hav e no t y et had occas i on to resolve how to balanc e the pa rent s’ a n d c h ild ’s persp ectives, but noth ing in o u r caselaw j us tifies the overw hel m i ng weight the di str i ct c ourtga ve the par ents’ las t s h ar ed int en t a t t h e e x p en se of th e u n d isp u te d ev id en c e o fJ M R ’s a c c lim at iza tio n . To rep ea t, inloos ely adopti ng the M o z es fra m ew o r k , w e h igh ligh te d its flex ibi l i ty. Se e Koch , 450 F. 3d at 715. W e e m phasi zed that th e inq uiry is “n ot
. . . rigi d ” an d “d oes no t requ ire c o ur t s t o i g no r e r e a l i ty, ” id. a t 71 6, a nd no te d tha t th e N in th C irc u i t h ad ac kn ow led ge d as m u c h w h en it sa id i n a subs eque ntc as e th at“ i t was ‘ k ee nl y a war e o fthe fl exibl e, f act- speci fi c nature ofthe habi tualr esidence i nquir y e nvi si oned by the Conve nti on, ’ ” i d. ( quo ting Ho lder, 392 F.3d at 101 5). Inth e fin al a n aly sis , th e c ou rt ’s fo c u s m u st rem ain on “ the ch ild []’s habi tual res i dence. ” Ho lder, 392 F. 3d at 1016 ( em phasi s a dd ed). S h ar ed parent ali ntent m ay be a proper sta rt i ng poi nt i n m any case s beca u se “[ p]ar ental inte nt acts as a su rrogate” in cas es involving very young chi l dren f orwh om the conc ept o facc l i m ati zati on h as little m ea n in g. Id. at10 16- 17. “Accli m ati zati on i s a n i neffe c t ua ls t a nd a r d b y wh i c h t o j ud g e h ab i tual38 N o. 12

- 2511

re si dence i n such ci rcum sta nc es b ecause the chi l d l acks th e a b ility to tru ly a c c lim at ize to a n ew en vir o n m e n t.” Ka rkk a inen , 4 4 5 F
. 3 d a t2 9 6
. O n th e o th e rh a n d , a n e mp h as is on sh ar ed p ar en ta l int en t “ d oe s n otw or k w h en . . . th e p ar en ts are es tr an ge d es se n tia lly fro m th e o u ts e t.” Kij owska , 463 F. 3d at 587. In shor t, the concept of“l ast shar ed parent ali ntent” is n ot a fi xed doctrinalr equi re m en t, a nd we th i nki t unwi se t o s eti n ston e th e re l ati ve w ei ghts ofp arentali ntent and the chi l d’s accl i m at i za ti o n. The habitua l

- r es i den ce i nqui r y r emai ns ess enti al l y f act-bound, pract i cal, and unencum ber ed w ith rigid ru les , form u las , or p re su m p tio n s. See Kij owska , 463 F.3d at58 6; Ka rkk a inen , 44 5 F .3d at 291 ; Fri edr ich , 983 F.2d at14 01 ; R e B a tes , N o. CA 12 2/ 89. H ere, allrel evan t ind icators p oint to I ll inois as J M R ’s ha bitua l reside nc e. W e already hav e d iscus sed J M R ’s p e r s p ec tiv e; by all ac c ou n ts an d by an y m ea su re , I llin ois w as hi s ho m e. That l eave s the m att ero fh ow to weigh parenta li ntent. On thi s i ssue the di str i ct c ou rter re d by heavi l y wei ghti ng the pare nts’ l astshared i ntent. Tha t m i g htmake s en se whenb o thpa r en ts ha ve th e ri ght t o fi x the chi l d’s pla ce o fr esi dence, but shar ed i nt en t h as l es s sa l i en ce wheno nl y o ne pa r en t ha s th e l ega lr i ght t o do so

. “[ T]he i n te n tio n orpurpose w hi ch h as t o be t ake n i nto acco unt i s that o fthe pe rs on or pe rs ons e n tit led to fix t h e p lac e o f th e c h ild ’s re sid en c e.” M o z es , 239 F. 3d at 1076 ( em phasi s add ed) ( i nter nalquotati on m ar ks om i tte d). M osto ften tw o p ar ents exer ci se that author i ty j oi ntl y, but not alw ays. H er e, M ar y had sole cu s tod y un d er I rish law from the tim e of JM R ’sN o. 12

- 2511 39 bi rth unti lM ar ch 201 1; as such, she had the e xcl usi ve ri ght t o fi x the pla ce o fJ M R’s r esi dence. Because M ar y had the l aw ful author i ty to re l oca te w ith ou t D er ek ’s c on se n t, JM R ’s re sid en c e inIl lin ois w as nei ther“t em p or ar y” i n f act norwrongful as a m atter o f law un d er the H agu e C onv en tion. M oreover, th e a c t u a l facts of J M R ’s l ife in Orlan d Park an d his thorou gh go in g a c c lim at iza t i o n th er e fo r alm os t a ll of his li fe suffi ce t o e s tablish th e U nited States as JM R ’s habi tualr esi dence not w i thsta nd i ng Dere k’ s obj ecti ons. M ary a nd De r ekwer e “e st r an g ed es se nt i al l y fr o m the outse t. ” K ijo w ska , 463 F. 3d at 587. U nd erthe ci rcum sta nces h er e, JM R ’s a c c lim at iza tio n in Illin ois ov er w h elm in gly ou tw eig h s t h e la st sh ar ed p a re n ta l int en t. Im m ed iat ely pr i o rt o M ar ch3 0, 2 01 1, whenthe a l lege d wro ng ful re te n tio n oc c u rre d , JM R ’s life w as in Illin ois , an d legit im at ely so . B as ed on a c om m on se n se v iew of all th e e vidence, w e “c an say with confi dence thatthe chi l d’s re l ati ve att achm en ts to the tw o countr i es have changed to th e p oi nt wh er e r equi ring r etur n to [ I re l and] would now b e t a n t a m o u n t t o t ak in g t h e c h ild ou t o f th e fa m ily an d so c ial en vir on m en t in w h ich its life h as d ev elo p ed .” M o z es , 239 F.3d at 1081 (intern al q uo tation m arks om itted ). Ac c o r d i n g l y, i mme d i a t e l y p r i o rt o Ma r c h 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , J MR w as habi tual l y r esi dent i n I l l i noi s, so se nd i ng hi m to I re l and w as notse nd i ng hi m hom e. See Ho lder, 392 F. 3d at 1019 ( “Sim p ly p ut, w ou ld r e tu rning the ch il d ren to G erm an y be t an ta m o untto se ndingthe m home? ”)

. M ary a nd D er ek a re ob vio u sly loc ke d in a n int er n at ion al s tr u gg le ove r J M R’s cust od y, and the pot enti alf ora j uri sdic ti onal40 N o. 12

- 2511

A ltho u g h th e Su p rem e C ou rt d id no t d ecid e t h e m atter in 8 C h a fin , and the parti es have not brie fed the ques ti on here, w e thi nk i t c l ea r that the c our t has the equi t abl e authority to issue a n o rd er req u iring J M R ’ s retu rn to the U nited States. That ’ s the pos i t i on ofthe U. S. Depar t m ent o f Stat e, the des i gnat ed Cen tr al Author i t y f or as s i s t i ng the i m pl em en t at i on of the Hague Conve nt i on i n the Uni t ed S tate s . On i t s be hal fthe Uni t ed S t at es fi l ed a n a m i c us c ur i ae br i efi n Chaf i n ex pl ai ni ng its po sition th at b eca u se the co u rt ha s the inh eren t equ itab le pow er t o order the chil d’s re- return, an app eal ofa re turn or de r un de r the Hag ue C onv enti ondo e s n otbe c ome m oo tby th e r et u rn o f th e c h ild

. S eeBr. f or the U.S. as Am ic us Curiae Sup porting Pet ’ r at14- 18, C h afin v . C h afin , 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (N o . 11 -1 3 4 7 ), 20 1 2 W L 70 6 9 9 1 4 at *1 4 -1 8 ; see a lso id. at 15, 2012 W L 7069914 at * 15 ( “Ifthe court ofapp eal s concl ud ed that the d istrict cou rt’ s retu rn ord er w as erro ne ou s be cau se the U nit ed Stat es w as the country ofthe chi ld’ s habitual re s i denc e, i tc oul d re ver s e the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s dec i s i on and o rd er r es p o n d en t to b ri n g t h e ch ild b a ck to th e U n ite d St a te s.” ). confl i ct r em ai ns. But the H ague Conventi on does not pro v i de a p r o c e du r e f o rr e s o l v i ngthe di s pu t e d j ur i sdic

ti onaland m er its cl ai m s in thi s chi l d-custo dy bat tl e. B ecau se JM Rw as ha bitua ll y residen t in Il linois, M ary di d n o t wr o n g fu l l y r e t a i n h i m i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s. The distri ct c ourtsho uld nothave o rder ed the chi l d returned t o I r e l a n d

. Fo r th e fo re go in g re as on s, w e R EV ERSE the di s t r i ctc o ur t ’ s o r de ra nd R EMA ND thi s ca se f or fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n. 8N o. 12

- 2511 41 E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e, d u b ita n te
. C hafin v. Ch afin , 13 3 S. C t. 81 ( 2012 ) , sho w s that thi s l i ti gat i on i s no t m oo t, d e sp ite the fact th at JM Ri s in I reland

. Sti ll, Ifind i t hard to und er sta nd wh y thi s l i ti gat i on co nti nues o r how any g oo d can co m e o fi t. The H ague Conventi on o n the Civil A spects o fInter nati onalChil d A bdu c tio n speci fi es w here a chi l d i s t o st aywhil e t he no r m all eg alpr o ce dur es f o rde te r m i ni ng ult i m ate custo dy run thei r cour se. Yet here the or der o r deci si on has been re ver sed. The cour ts of I re l and h ave re ached a fi naldeci si on a nd awarded cus to d y to Derek Re dmo nd

. T he c o ur t s o fI l l i no i s a l s o h a v e r e a c he d a fi na l d ec i si o n a nd c o nc l ude d tha t th eyha ve no war r an t to disa gr ee w i th the I ri sh deci si on. U nl i ke the c om m on si t u a t i o n i n wh i c h e a c h p a r e n t r u n s t o th e j u r i s d i c t i o n h e or she thi nks f avo rabl e a nd o btains anex parteo r der of c ustody, bo th the I ri sh and the I l l i noi s pro ceedi ngs w er e a dvers ar i al, pro du ci ng j ud gm en ts thatbi nd bo th parents in p e rs onam . Thi s l i ti g at i o n un derthe Hag ue Con ve nt i o n di d no t ev enb eg i n un ti l bo thI r el an d a nd I l l i noi s had m ade thei r deci si ons about J M R’s custo dy. I nstea d ofas ki ng o ffi ci al s in I l l i n ois to se nd J M R to I r el an d, De r ekfi l ed su i t unde rthe Hag ue Co nv en ti o n. M ar y Redm ond not onl y is b ou nd bythe I ri sh j ud gm ent a w ar ding c u st od y t o Derekbut al so prom i sed to obe y that j ud gm ent. H erprom i se w as ess enti alto o btaining p erm issi on to tr a v e l w ith JM Rto I ll inois, pu rport e dl y t o t i dyu p a fe w pe r s o na lma t t e r s i n pr e parati on f o r a l o ng - t e r m s t a y i n I r e l a nd

. M a r y b r o k e her p rom ise and de fi ed th e I rish j ud gm en t. I reland cons iders42 N o. 12

- 2511 h er a fu git ive from j u st ice (h er co n te m p t o f co u rtis ob vious) , wh i ch al so m ake s i t i m possibl e t o see how sh e can re alis tic ally h o p e t o ob ta inlaw fu l cu st od y of JM Rin Illino is. It is n otsim p ly th at sh e v iola te d bo th a va lid j ud ici al o r dera nd he ro wn unde r ta k i ng ; i t i s th ats he ha s revealed that she w il l viol ate an y orde r i n D erek’s fav or . N o leg al s y s t e m ca n ac c ep t t h at “h ea d s I w in, tails you l ose ” a p p ro ach. S ee Ho m o la v. M cN a m a ra , 59 F. 3d 647 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95). M ar y has di squal i fi ed her sel fas a candidate f orf avo rab l e t re atm ent b y the j ud i ci ar y o f an y s ta te o rna ti o n. Ye t th e par ti es ha ve no t asked u s t o di smi ss the fede r als uit on th e g r o und tha t th e su i ts i n I r el an d and I l l i noi s a re o ver . N or h as Dereki nvoke d the I ri sh j ud gm ent a s a gr ou n d o fi ssue orcl ai m pre cl usi on, ev en th o ug h the I r i shc o ur t no t o nl y a war ded Der ekj o i nt custo dy as a m att ero fI re l and’s do m es ti c l aw but al so con clud ed , un d er the H agu e C onv en tion, th at M ary’s custo dy ofJM R in I l l i noi s was wrongful. The part i es’ in d i f fer en c e t o p rin c ip les of p re c lu sio n is w h y m y c oll ea g ue s p r o ce ed to r en dera s ec o nd de ci si o n un derthe H ague Conventi on

— on e a t o d d s w i th Irela n d ’s. T h is is w i thi n the j ud i ci alpow er, gi venCh afin , but tee ter s o n th e brink of being an ad visory opi n io n . U nd er C hafin the dist ri ct c ourthas the l ega lpow erto di re ct a pare nt to retu rn a ch il d to the U nited S t ates (see sli p op. 40 n.8), butg i ve n the I r i shj udg m en t

— whose v al i di tythe parti es do not questi on

— i t would be an abuse o fdi scr eti on t o i ssue such an o rderto Dere k. T h a t ’ s n o tth e o n l y p r o b l e m w i th th i s l i t i g a t i o n . My c olle a g u es d isc u ss atlen gt h w h er e JM Rw as “h ab itu allyN o. 12

- 2511 43

r es i den t” whenM ary v i o l ated the I r i shj udg m en t an d r e t a i ne d J M R i n I l l i no i s . T he p r e mi s e o fthi s di s c us si on is th at JM Rw a s la w fu lly p re se n t in Il lin ois , in M ary ’ s cus to dy, b eg i nni ngi n Nov embe r2 00 7, wh en s he unil ate rall y r em ove d JM R fro m I re l and. J M R’s pre sence i n Il l i noi s was l aw ful, and ther ef or e co unts to w ar d establ i shi ng “hab i tualr esi dence”, bec ause und erI ri sh l aw Derek, as a n u nm ar ri ed f ather, had no r i ght t o contr ol hi s chi l d’s re sid ence. Dere k di d not obtain pare ntal ri ghts, as a m att ero fI ri sh l aw , unti lFebruary 2 011, wh en an Irish co u r t g r a n te d h is p et itio n for gu ar d ian sh ip an d j o i ntc us to dy o fJ M R. Thi s i s r i g htfr o m the pe r sp ective ofI r el an d. I s i t r i g ht fro m the perspect i ve ofI l l i noi s t oo ? W hat happens to th e “ h ab itu al r es id en c e” iss u e w h en th e jur isd ict ion in wh i c h th e c h i l d i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n td o e s n o tvi e w a c ha ng e o fr e s i de nc e a s v a l i d? That questi on pot enti ally m att er s be cause, al though I re l and tre ats unm ar ri ed f athers as havi ng no custo dial ri g ht s, I l l i no i s ha s a di ffer en t appr o ac h. J M R was born in I ll inois, and De rek ackn ow ledge d being th e father. H is n am e is on JM R ’s b irth c e rt ifica te . U n d er Il lin ois l a w, a n a c k n o wl e dg e d b u tu n ma r r i e d f a th e rh a s s o me cu stod ialri gh t s , w hich go w ith obli gations to sup p ort the c hi l d. 750 ILCS §45/ 14; see al so sl i p op. 19 n. 4. Ido not w an t t o re sol ve any i ssue ofI l l i noi s l aw ( m y c ol l eagues cor re ctl y s tat e that r igh ts under the H ague Conventi on ar e a m at te r of fe d er al la w ), bu t Illino is c ou ld w ell deem M ar y’ s ac ti on in 200 7 t o have been a vi ol ati on o f Derek ’ s r i ghts

— as I l l i noi s underst ands thos e r i ghts,44 N o. 12

- 2511 th ou gh n otas Irela n d u n d er st a n d s t h em . A n d if Illino is w ou ld d ee m JM R ’s p re se n c e in Il lin ois to be u n law fu l, how can the tim e h e spent i n I l l i noi s co unt to w ar d acquir i ng “hab i tualr esi dence” in I l l i noi s? M y c olle ag u es rec og n ize th at t im e in Il lin ois w ou ld not c ount t oward habi tualr esi dence i fM ar y’ s uni l ate ra l re m ov al ofJ M R fro m Dere k’ s cust ody had vi ol ate d I ri sh law. Sl i p op. 30 –31, ci ti ng K ijo w ska v. Ha ines , 46 3 F
. 3d 58 3, 58 7 (7 th C i r . 2 0 06 ). So w h y w ou ld tim e in Il lin ois count t oward habi tualr esi dence i fM ar y’ s uni l ate ra l re m ov al of JM Rfrom D er ek ’s c u st od y v iol a t ed Il lin ois l aw ? M y c ol l eague s d o not a dd re ss that questi on

— nor did the parti es, tho ugh w e i ssued an or der a ftero ra l ar gum en t di r ec tingthe m t o do s o . Pe r ha ps th eymis underst oo d the quest i on. But the re sul t i s a n opi ni on that disc usses a subj ect that m ay m atterto o thercas es ( th o u g h l i k e l y n o tt o th i s o n e ) wi th o u tc o n s i d e r i ng a pot enti al l y v i tali ssue. Iam n ot su r e ho w thi s i ss ue s ho ul d b e r es o l ve d, a nd Ia m c o nt en t to l eti t pas s be ca us e no th i ngwe sa y here i s l i kel y t o affect J M R’s ul tim ate pl acem ent. The co urts o fI r e l a nd a nd I l l i no i s h a v e ma de the i rde c i s i o ns i n a dver sar i all i ti gat i on . I t i s t i m e forthi s federa lo ver l ay to end and the subj ect be r etur ned t o the dom est i crelations ap p aratu s of I ll in ois and I reland , w he re i t s houl d have be en al lal ong.

7- 25- 13