Opinion ID: 2675329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The parents' shared intent

Text: Particularly when the child in question is very young, our habitual-residence inquiry focuses on the parents' shared intent and settled purpose rather than the child's, as a very young child lack[s] both the material and psychological means to decide where he or she will reside. Id. at 11 ('[T]he intention or purpose which has to be taken into account is that of the person or persons entitled to fix the place of the child's residence.' (quoting Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001))). In the event that the parents disagree as to their children's place of habitual residence, we look to the intent of the parents at the latest time that their intent was shared. Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2012). This finding of shared intent is critical, as the wishes of one parent alone are not sufficient to change a child's habitual residence. Darín, 746 F.3d at 11. Often, a wrongful retention case will require the district court to determine which of two potential habitual residences is in fact the habitual residence of a child who has spent time in two or more countries. In such a situation, it is -8- imperative that the district court distinguish between the abandonment of a prior habitual residence and the acquisition of a new one. Id. A person cannot acquire a new habitual residence without forming a settled intention to abandon the one left behind. Otherwise, one is not habitually residing; one is away for a temporary absence of long or short duration. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, the district court -- relying upon the parties' affidavits and without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing -- found that, at a minimum, the parties agreed to move to Singapore for three years, and the three-year period has not yet elapsed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the parties' shared intent was that their children reside in Singapore at the time immediately prior to their retention. The mother takes issue with this finding, noting that the court seemingly ignored evidence that the family intended to retain habitual residence in the United States. She argues that the court erred when it failed to consider whether the parties intended to abandon their prior habitual residence before concluding that they acquired habitual residence in Singapore during the course of a temporary stay. In short, we agree that the district court's analysis of the children's habitual residence was erroneous. The district court failed to differentiate between the abandonment of a prior habitual residence and the creation of a new -9- one as required by Darín.4 Instead, it merely found that the parents agreed that the children would be present in a particular place for a particular period of time that had yet to elapse. If that constituted a sufficient finding of intent to establish habitual residence, any parents consenting to a child spending an academic year abroad or even a summer vacation visiting relatives would risk changing their child's habitual residence. See Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1074 (Even the child who goes off to summer camp arguably has a settled purpose to live there continuously for a limited period. . . . [But] he already has an established residence elsewhere and his absence from it -- even for an entire summer -- is no indication that he means to abandon it. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Although the issue was squarely before the court, the district court made no factual finding one way or the other as to whether the parents intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States in favor of Singapore, or whether they intended to retain their habitual residence while simply residing temporarily in Singapore. As a result, the district court seems to have overlooked an important factor in the habitual-residence analysis. Cf. Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that parents did not intend to abandon the family's 4 In fairness to the district judge, she did not have the benefit of our opinion in Darín, which was issued several days after she issued her order in this case. -10- habitual residence in favor of Israel where the parents only agreed to move to Israel temporarily for a one-year conditional period); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the parties lacked shared intent to abandon their habitual residence in the United States where the family moved to Germany for the father's temporary, four-year military assignment). The father, in an effort to persuade us that the district court's legal analysis was sufficient, reminds us that parents need not intend to stay in a place indefinitely in order to establish habitual residence; in certain circumstances, a settled intention to stay in a place for a limited period may suffice. See Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 223 (3d Cir. 1995). In Feder, the Third Circuit found that where a family moved to Australia, bought a home, obtained jobs, enrolled their son in school, and intended for their child to live in Australia for at . . . least the foreseeable future, the fact that the mother had reservations about staying indefinitely and ultimately spent only six months in Australia before deciding to leave with her son did not prevent Australia from becoming the child's habitual residence. Id. at 224-25. The readily distinguishable facts of Feder provide little support for the father's argument. Most critically, here, the parties did not agree to move to Singapore for the foreseeable future. While there is an ongoing dispute as to the precise -11- nature of the parties' shared intent, both parties agree that their time in Singapore was intended to be temporary, corresponding to a three-year job placement. Additionally, the Feder family put their home in the United States up for sale, but the parents in this case did not, nor did they purchase a home in Singapore. Unlike Mrs. Feder, the mother here was unable to work while abroad, and unlike Mr. Feder, the father here was on temporary assignment and did not pursue permanent resident status for his family in Singapore. Thus, it is far from clear that the family in this case intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States and establish a new one in Singapore.