N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL AB R

AHAM FARR , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ONNIE JEANENE KENDR IC K, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-16297 DC No. 3:19 c v -8127 DW L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dom inic La

nz a , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 17, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd M AR SHALL, ** Distric t Judge
. M ic ha e l Fa

rr file d a pro se

pe tition under the Inte rnat iona l C hild Abduc tion R e m e die s Ac t, 22 U.S.C . § 9001 e t se q. , whic h im ple m e nts the provisions of the Ha gue C onve ntion on the C ivil Aspe c ts of Inte rnationa l C hild Abduc tion (the 

# FIL ED AUG 20 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C onsue lo B . M a

rsha ll, Unite d

Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e n tra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.C onve ntion). Fa rr sought there turn of his twin m i nor c hildre n to M e xic o, a fte r his
e x-wife and m othe r of the c hildre n, B onnie Je ane ne Ke ndric k, took the m from M e x ic o to livewith he r in Ariz o na . The distric t c ourt de nie d Farr’ s pe tition,
c onc luding tha

t Ke ndric k wa s not re q

uire d to re turn the c hildre n be c a use the
c hildre n’ s c ountry

of ha bitua l re side nc e wa s the Unite d State s, not M e xic o. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Unde r the C onve ntion, “ a c h ild wrongfully

re m ove d from

he r c ountry

of

‘ h a b itua l re side n c e ’ ordina

rily m ust be re turne d to tha

t c ountry .” Monask

y v . Taglie ri , 140 S. C t. 719, 723 (2020). Thus, “ [d] e te rm ination of ‘ ha bitua l
re side nc e ’ is ‘ pe rha

ps the m ost im

p orta nt inquiry unde r the C onve ntion.’ ” M urphy
v . Sloan , 764 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Asv e sta v . Pe troutsas , 580 F.3d 1000, 1017 (9th C ir.2009)). “ The ha bitua l-re side nc e de te rm ination . . . pre s e nts a ta s k for fa c tfinding c ourts, not a ppe lla t e c ourts, a

nd should be

judge d on
a ppe a l by a c le ar-e rror re vie w sta

nda rd de fe re ntia l to thefa c tfinding c ourt.” Monask y , 140 S. C t. at 730. The distric t c ourt thoroughly and c are fully

re v ie we d the e vide nc e and found that the pa re n ts did not ha

ve a sha re d, se ttle d inte n t to a

ba ndon the Unite d State s a s the i r ha bitua l re s ide nc e whe n the y m ove d to M e xic o, pursua nt to e xisting pre c e de nt. Se e Vale nzue la v . Mic he l , 736 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ In the
2Ninth C irc uit, we look for the la st sha re d , se ttle d inte nt of the pa re nts in a n atte m pt to de te rm ine whic h c ountry is the ‘ loc us of the c hildre n’ s fam i ly and soc ia l de ve lopm e nt.’ ” (quoting M oze s v . Moze s , 239 F.3d 1067, 1084 (9th C ir. 2001)). Howe ve r, a fte r the d i stric t c ourt’ s de c i sion, theSupre m e C ourt he ld tha t “ a c hild’ s ha bitua l re side nc e de pe nds on thetota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s spe c ific to the
c a se .” Monask

y , 140 S. C t . at 723. Thus, “ a wide range of fa c ts othe r tha n a n
a c tua l a gre e m e nt, inc l u ding fa c ts indic ating tha t the pa re n ts ha ve m a de the ir hom e in a pa rtic ula r pla c e , c an e na

ble a trie r to de te rm ine whe the r an infa nt’ s re s ide nc e in tha t pla c e ha s the qua lity

of be ing ‘ ha

bitua l.’ ” Id. at 729.

“ Unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s of this c a se , we de c line to disturb the judgm e nt be low.” Id. a t 731. Thedistric t c ourt’ s ve ry thorough findings e

na ble us to
c onc lude tha

t, unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the c hildre n’ s ha

bitua l
re side nc e wa s the Unite d State s . For e x am ple , the distric t c ourt found tha t Ke ndric k c re d i bly te stifie d tha

t she vie we d the m ove a s te m pora ry and be l ie ve d the

3fam ily

would re m a in in M e xic o for thre e to five y e ars. 1 The c ourt a lso re lie d on Ke ndric k ’ s re pe a te d re q

ue sts, in e m a il e xc ha

nge s a n d in c onve rsat ions se c re tly
re c o rde d by

Farr, to re t

urn to the Unite d State s. The c ourt found “ m o st te lling” a Ja nua ry 2017 e m a i l e xc ha

nge , in whic h Ke n dric k de sc ribe d Houston, Te x a s, a s the i r hom e an d pe rm a

ne n t re side nc e , a

nd, rathe r tha

n dispute the c ha

ra c te riz ation, Farr sought to postpone

de c iding whe n the m ove would oc c ur. A De c e m b e r 2016
e m a il by Farr a lso supports the

distric t c ourt’ s finding. In this e m a il, Fa rr de ta ile d
a “ pla n of a c tion” for the ir re turn to theUnite d State s, se tting forth de c isions they
ne e de d to m ak e “ ve ry

soon,” suc h a s whic h

Unite d State s c i ty

the y would m ove to. The re c ord a lso c onta ins M arc h 2016 te xt m e ssa g e e xc ha nge s in whic h Ke n dric k
e xpre s se d unc e rta inty

a bout whe the r the y

would sta

y in M e xic o, writing, for
e xam ple , tha t it wa s diffic u lt for the fam ily to se ttle in M e xic o a nd m ake frie nds be c a use “ we don’ t know m o n th to m onth if we ’ ll be he re or not.”

1 Farr ra ise s m any

c ha lle nge s to the c o urt’ s c re dibility findings, but “ [w] he re , a s he re , findings of fa c t turn on c re dibility de te rm inations, thefindings re c e ive he ighte ne d de fe re nc e in light of ‘ the fa c t finde r’ s unique opportunity to obse rve the de m e anor of the witne sse s.’ ” Vale nzue la , 736 F.3d a t 1176 (quoting N e w ton v . N

at’l Broad. C

o., 930 F.2d 662, 671 (9th C ir.1990)). W e do not find any of Farr’ s a

rgum e nts re ga

rding a lle ge d inc onsiste nc ie s tha t unde rm i ne Ke ndric k ’ s a

nd othe r witne sse s’ c re dibility suffic ie nt to ove rturn the distric t c ourt’ s c re dibility

findings. 4Othe r c irc um sta nc e s the c ourt re l ie d on inc lude the following: Fa rr, Ke ndric k , a

nd the c hildre n a

re Unite d State s c itiz e n s; Fa rr’ s siste r te stifie d tha

t Farr’ s job in M e xic o wa s “ inde finite ” and “ te m pora ry ” ; Ke ndric k’ s and the
c hildre n’ s te m

pora ry visa s e xpire d

in August 2017; 2 Farr m a d e se ve n trips to the Unite d State s be t

w e e n August 2015 a

nd August 2018; a

ll of Ke ndric k’ s a

n d m ost of Farr’ s e xte nde d fam ily m e m be rs live in the Unite d

Stat e s; a nd Fa rr m a inta ine d
an Am e ric a

n ba nk a c c ount a

n d Am e ric a

n a utom obile insura

nc e while living in M e x ic o.In a d dition, the

c ourt note d tha

t the c hildre n we re le ss tha n a y e ar old whe n the y m ove d to M e xic o, only

thre e y e ars old whe n the y re turne d to the Unite d Stat e s, did not spe ak Spa

nish, a nd did not a

tte nd sc hool in M e xic o. The tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s supports the

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the c h ildre n’ s ha

b itua l
re side nc e wa s the Unite d State s , not M e x ic o. For the re a s ons a

rtic ulate d in Monask

y , we c onc lude that it is not ne c e ssa ry to re m a nd for the distric t c ourt to c onside r the e vide n c e unde r the ne w sta nda rd
announc e d by Monask

y . First, thedistric t c ourt c onduc te d a thre e -day e vide ntia ry he aring, c onside ring num e rous e xhibits a n d te stim o ny from

m any witne sse s, a

nd thus “ ha d be fore it a ll the fa c ts re le va nt to thedispute .” Monask y , 140 S. C t. at

2 Farr’ s a

rgum e n t tha

t the visa s we re be ing re ne we d a s of August 2018 is una va iling. Hedoe s not indic ate whe n he file d the a pplic ation for re ne wa l, a

nd, a t a ny ra te , he doe s not dispute that the visa s e xpire d in August 2017. 5731. Se c ond, “ [n] othing in the re c ord sugge s ts tha

t the Distric t C o urt would
a ppra i se the fa c ts diffe re n tly on re m and.” Id. Third, a l though Fa rr c ite s e vide nc e that he c onte nds e sta

b lishe s the c hildre n’ s ha

bitua l re side nc e wa s M e xic o, the distric t c o urt a lre a dy

“ c onside re d the c om

pe ting fa c t s be aring on those a s se rtions.” Id. Fina lly , “ [a ] re m and would c onsum e tim e whe n swift re solution is the C onve ntion’ s obje c tive .” Id. The distric t c ourt c a

re fully la id out a ll the e vide nc e in fa vor of both side s, sta te d whic h fa c t s it wa s re ly ing on a nd whic h one s it wa s not, e xpla ine d the
re a s ons for thosee v ide ntia ry de c isions, a

nd e xpla ine d its c re dibility findings. Its findings a re supporte d

by the re c ord. 3 AFFIRM E D.

3 The distric t c ourt furthe r c onc l ude d tha t , e ve n if Ke n dric k would othe rwise be re quire d to re turn the c hildre n, a n e xc e ption to the

re turn re quire m e nt a pplie d, se e Monask

y , 140 S. C t. at 723 (noting tha t the C onve ntion re c ogniz e s tha t a c hild’ s re turn is not re q

uire d “ if the re turn would plac e he r at a ‘ grave risk’ of ha rm or othe rwise in a

n intole ra ble situa tion” (quoting Art. 13(b) of the C onve ntion)), finding tha t the re wa s a

grave risk tha

t re turning the c hildre n to M e x ic o would e xpose the m to phy sic a l or psy c hologic a l ha rm . W e do not a ddre ss this finding be c a

use we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the c hildre n ’ s ha bitua l re side nc e wa s the Unite d State s. 6