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

Heading: M.B.D.’s birth.

Text: During that time, their “plan for the future diverged.” Id. “When A.M.B.D. was five weeks old, [Violeta] got a job [in Romania] because someone had to earn money and [Alin] did not want to work in Romania.” Id. Violeta’s green card also expired, the United States denied her application for an extension, and she developed reservations about returning to the United States. “She therefore made plans for the 2 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 3 family to live in Romania.” Id. at 21. As part of these plans, she applied for “the First House program, a Romanian program to assist young families in buying their first home.” Id. Alin intended for the family to return to the United States. He got Violeta’s permission to travel to the United States with A.M.B.D. so he could obtain a social security card for the child. “He also planned to work on getting [Violeta] a green card, to bring her over to the United States, and to earn money through a job.” Id. at 22. To facilitate this trip, Violeta signed an affidavit that stated: “I agree and consent[] that [A.M.B.D. can] travel to the United States of America, starting with July 6, 2020, until December 31, 2020, together with Alin Dumitrascu, as parent of minor.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Alin took A.M.B.D. to the United States in July 2020. But he did not help Violeta apply for a green card. And he did not return A.M.B.D. to Romania by the December 31 deadline to do so. Violeta then filed for divorce in Romania and launched these proceedings seeking A.M.B.D.’s return to Romania. The district court found that Romania was A.M.B.D.’s habitual residence when Alin retained her in the United States. It therefore evaluated whether Alin’s retention of A.M.B.D. breached Violeta’s custody rights under Romanian law, concluded that his retention did, and ordered A.M.B.D.’s return to Romania pending custody proceedings there. Alin challenges the district court’s finding that A.M.B.D. habitually resided in Romania. 3 Appellate Case: 21-1341 Document: 010110684665 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 4