Opinion ID: 3066200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hague Convention Framework for Habitual

Text: Residence The Hague Convention, which was drafted in response to concerns about “unilateral removal or retention of children by parents, guardians or close family members,” seeks to prevent forum shopping in custody battles. Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1070–72 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Article 3 of the Convention, The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where— a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or 8 MURPHY V. SLOAN alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. Convention, art. 3, 19 I.L.M. at 1501 (emphasis added). “[W]hen a child who was habitually residing in one signatory state is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another, Article 12 provides that the latter state ‘shall order the return of the child forthwith.’” Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1070 (quoting Convention, art. 12, 19 I.L.M. at 1502). The United States and Ireland are both signatories to the Convention. Determination of “habitual residence” is “perhaps the most important inquiry under the Convention.” Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1017 (9th Cir. 2009). In giving practical application to this term, we are bound by the language of the Convention, along with our decision in Mozes, which sets forth the governing framework. To determine a child’s habitual residence, we “look for the last shared, settled intent of the parents.” Valenzuela v. Michel, 736 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013). Where a child has a “well-established habitual residence, simple consent to [her] presence in another forum is not usually enough to shift” the habitual residence to the new forum. Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1081. “Rather, the agreement between the parents and the circumstances surrounding it must enable the court to infer a shared intent to abandon the previous habitual residence, such as when there is effective agreement on a stay of indefinite duration.” Id. The parents’ intent is not the only factor to consider. As we explained in Mozes, the question is “whether we can say with confidence that the child’s relative attachments to the two countries have changed to the point where requiring MURPHY V. SLOAN 9 return to the original forum would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family and social life in which its life has developed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Murphy urges us to adopt a habitual residence standard that would focus on the subjective experiences of the child, contending that Mozes is out of step with our sister circuits and international consensus. We decline to accept Murphy’s formulation. For one, nearly every circuit has adopted our view of the proper standard for habitual residence, which takes into account the shared, settled intent of the parents and then asks whether there has been sufficient acclimatization of the child to trump this intent. Id. at 1076–79; see, e.g., Darín v. Olivero-Huffman, 746 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2014); Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir. 2005); Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280, 292 (3d Cir. 2006); Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245, 253–54 (4th Cir. 2009); Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295, 310–11 (5th Cir. 2012); Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703, 717–18 (7th Cir. 2006); Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247, 1252–54 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). But see Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 991 (6th Cir. 2007) (focusing “solely on the past experiences of the child, not the intentions of the parents”). For another, we do not view Mozes as incompatible with international consensus. Murphy argues that in foreign courts, parental intent is “only one of the factors that may be relevant” to the habitual residence inquiry. She points to decisions of courts in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, contending that some of these countries place a greater emphasis on a child’s surroundings or “actual centre of interests” in determining habitual residence than we do. Although the language of the Convention is universal, we recognize that 10 MURPHY V. SLOAN courts around the world may have somewhat varied approaches to balancing the factors relevant to the determination of a child’s habitual residence, including parental intent and the child’s circumstances. But even counsel for Murphy acknowledges that courts in Britain, the European Union and New Zealand, among others, look to many factors in determining a child’s habitual residence, including parental intent. In this regard, our decision in Mozes—by which we are bound—is not inconsistent with recent decisions of international courts.4 We are not persuaded that there has been a worldwide sea change since Mozes—let alone a new worldwide consensus—that would warrant a suggestion to reconsider our decision. Nor, of course, are we free to ignore binding circuit precedent.