Opinion ID: 6341007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M.B.D. habitually resided in Romania.

Text: First, Alin argues the district court erred in weighing the couple’s intent on where to raise A.M.B.D. He points to evidence that when they first went to Romania and for some time thereafter, he and Violeta shared an intent to raise A.M.B.D. in the United States. And he argues the district court erred by allowing Violeta’s changed 6 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 7 intent, to raise A.M.B.D. in Romania, to trump his steadfast intent to raise A.M.B.D. in the United States. 2 Alin is correct that “‘the intentions and circumstances of caregiving parents are relevant considerations.’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 19 (quoting Monasky, 140 S. Ct. at 727). “But a court must consider all the facts and circumstances concerning the couple’s intended stay in the country.” Watts, 935 F.3d at 1145. Here, Alin and Violeta shared an intent to return to the United States “as a family.” Aplt. App., vol. 2 at 30 (emphasis added). They “never had a shared, mutual intent to live apart.” Id. at 31. And when Violeta’s green card expired in November 2019, the family could no longer live together in the United States. The district court weighed the impact of this changed circumstance on the couple’s prior intent, alongside other facts, including the couple’s joint effort to secure an affidavit time-limiting A.M.B.D.’s travel away from the only country she had ever lived in, and found that “the parties’ pre-birth intent [was] outweighed by their intent and conduct thereafter.” Id. at 37. We decline Alin’s invitation to re-weigh the evidence on appeal. See United States v. Gilgert, 314 F.3d 506, 515–16 (10th Cir. 2002) (“On clear error review, our role is not to re-weigh the evidence . . . .”). 2 To the extent Alin argues Violeta could only prevail by showing a shared parental intent to raise A.M.B.D. in Romania, we reject this argument as contrary to Monasky. See 140 S. Ct. at 726 (holding that “the determination of habitual residence [for an infant] does not turn on the existence of an actual agreement” “between the parents on where to raise their child”). 7 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 8 Second, Alin argues that “[o]utside of [Violeta’s] unilateral actions, the district court had little to rely on to support its conclusion that A.M.B.D.’s habitual residence was Romania.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 37. We disagree. The evidence shows A.M.B.D. was born in Romania, lived there for ten months—accumulating various possessions 3 and building relationships with extended family in Romania during that time—and only left Romania via a travel document that limited her legal absence to less than six months. 4 Also, both of her parents could legally live in Romania, whereas only her father could legally live in the United States. These facts support a finding that A.M.B.D. was “at home,” Monasky, 140 S. Ct. at 726, in Romania. Cf. United States v. Chavez, 734 F.3d 1247, 1250 (10th Cir. 2013) (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous unless it is without factual support in the record, or unless the court after reviewing all the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court erred.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Third, Alin highlights evidence that could support a finding A.M.B.D. was habitually resident in the United States. He points to the couple’s joint efforts to secure U.S. citizenship for A.M.B.D., a delay in A.M.B.D.’s trip to the United States 3 Alin argues the district court erred when it “found that A.M.B.D. had a bicycle in Romania” because Violeta testified that the bicycle in question did not belong to A.M.B.D., but instead belonged to the family. Aplt. Opening Br. at 40. This argument misconstrues the district court’s finding, which was that “[t]he family’s belongings in Romania include . . . a bicycle.” Aplt. App., vol. 2 at 20 (emphasis added). 4 Alin does not challenge the district court’s finding that Romanian law required him to return A.M.B.D. to Romania by December 31, 2020. 8 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 9 by about a month due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Violeta’s efforts to help Alin secure employment in the United States, and a catalogue of A.M.B.D.’s possessions in the United States. But this evidence does not lead us to “a definite and firm conviction that the district court erred,” Chavez, 734 F.3d at 1250 (internal quotation marks omitted). Starting with A.M.B.D.’s citizenship, the Hague Convention’s writers “deliberately chose ‘habitual residence’ for its factual character, making it the foundation for the Convention’s return remedy in lieu of formal legal concepts like domicile and nationality.” Monasky, 140 S. Ct. at 727. And Alin does not cite any evidence that A.M.B.D.’s legal citizenship bore any relation to where she was “at home,” id. Regarding the delay in A.M.B.D.’s trip to the United States, even if A.M.B.D.’s flight had not been delayed, her earlier departure on a limited-duration trip would not sway the habitual residence analysis. Violeta’s efforts to help Alin find a job and A.M.B.D.’s accumulation of possessions in the United States might lend support to the conclusion A.M.B.D. had taken up habitual residence in the United States, but they do not compel it on the factual record before the district court. Fourth, Alin argues the district court erred by failing to discuss evidence pertaining to A.M.B.D.’s acclimation in the United States during the period between July 8 and December 31, 2020, in its section addressing A.M.B.D.’s habitual residence. But as a general rule, “the district court is not required to make findings as to every detail. Findings are sufficient if they indicate the factual basis for the court’s general conclusion as to ultimate facts and are broad enough to cover all 9 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 10 material issues.” Hjelle v. Mid-State Consultants, Inc., 394 F.3d 873, 880 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf. Nulf v. Int’l Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553, 561 (10th Cir. 1981) (observing that “a trial court is not a dictating machine” and that “[i]ts findings do not have to contain evidence supporting every possible viewpoint”) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and 52). And in this case, the district court’s order makes it clear the court was aware of and considered evidence of A.M.B.D.’s acclimation in the United States after July 8, 2020, by discussing some of that evidence in a later section of its order. See Aplt. App., vol. 2 at 45 (recounting undisputed witness “testimony that A.M.B.D. has had a happy childhood with her father and grandparents in Colorado”).