All that the law requires is that there is a settled purpose. That is not to say that the propositus intends to stay where he is indefinitely. Indeed his purpose while settled may be for a limited period . . . All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. Federal courts are in agreement that to determine the habitual residence, the court must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions.
Future intentions harbored by one parent are irrelevant to the court's inquiry.
When determining habitual residence, the trial court sitting as trier of fact is required to undertake a fact-intensive inquiry and from that inquiry draw a legal Conclusion. We believe this presents a classic mixed question of law and fact. When a matter involving both factual determinations and legal conclusions is decided by the trial court, Texas courts generally employ the abuse of discretion standard. By applying the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court defers to the trial court's factual determinations while properly fulfilling its role to determine questions of law de novo. Jose urges a different result based on his reading of a Mexican child-custody statute which he says requires six months' residence in a place to establish habitual residence.