Opinion ID: 2543606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Habitual residence

Text: First, we examine the question of which country serves as the children's habitual residence. We begin by observing that although a court must identify which country is the children's habitual residence, this term is nowhere defined in the Convention. [37] Instead, the term is intended by the Convention's drafters to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case in a non-technical manner. [38] We are not without guidance, however. Other courts that have addressed this issue have stated that when determining a child's state of habitual residence, courts must look back in time, not forward. [39] In other words, courts must look to the past experiences of the parties, and not to the parties' future intentions. [40] Furthermore, when conducting this inquiry, the focus is on the child, not the parents. [41] Therefore, any subjective intentions that the parents harbor regarding where the child is to live are irrelevant. Additionally, any change in geography that would affect a child's habitual residence must occur before the removal at issue. [42] Although the child's physical whereabouts are central to an inquiry, one parent's questionable removal of the child is not determinative when ascertaining habitual residence. Courts also look to where children have a degree of settled purpose. [43] Under this analysis, the child has a degree of settled purpose in the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization. [44] Ordinarily, a determination of habitual residence is a question of fact which we will not disturb. After reviewing the facts and circumstances of this case, however, we conclude, as a matter of law, that only one country could possibly be the habitual residence. The children's state of habitual residence prior to their removal was Norway. The record in this case reveals that in July 1998, when the children were three and seven years of age, they moved from London, England, where they were residing at the time, to Norway. They remained in Norway for twenty-two months until they were removed to the United States by Scotlund in May 2000. While in Norway, the children were registered under Norwegian law as residents of that country. And during their stay in Norway, the children attended school and otherwise conducted their lives as normal children. The children, while living in Norway, had a degree of settled purpose to remain there. Although there is some evidence in the record that Cisilie and Scotlund may have intended that the children would move to the United States at some time in the future, [45] the courts are not bound, as we have previously stated, by the intentions of the parents regarding future events. [46] Furthermore, Scotlund's unilateral act of removing the children from Norway cannot change their state of habitual residence. Therefore, the children's state of habitual residence was Norway at the time Scotlund removed them from that country. Their habitual residence could be nowhere else. It could not be Nevada, as neither they nor their parents ever lived here. It could not be Great Britain, as no evidence exists in the record to support a finding that upon the family's departure from Great Britain, either parent ever expected to return.