Facts
- Michelle Monasky (U.S. citizen) and Domenico Taglieri (Italian citizen) married in the United States and moved to Italy in 2013 for work without definite plans to return to the United States.
- The relationship deteriorated; Monasky alleged Taglieri was physically abusive.
- Their daughter (A.M.T.) was born in Italy in February 2015 and lived there continuously for roughly two months.
- Monasky left Italy with the infant and went to Ohio to live with her parents.
- Taglieri filed a return petition in federal court under the Hague Convention and ICARA, alleging A.M.T. had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence (Italy).
- After a four-day bench trial, the district court found Italy was A.M.T.’s habitual residence and ordered her return; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying clear-error review.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address how to determine an infant’s habitual residence and the appellate standard of review for habitual-residence determinations.
Issues
- Whether an infant’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention requires an actual parental agreement when the child is too young to acclimate.
- Whether appellate courts review a trial court’s habitual-residence determination de novo or for clear error.
Decision
- The Court affirmed.
- Habitual residence is determined by the totality of the circumstances; an actual parental agreement is not required, including for infants.
- A trial court’s habitual-residence determination is reviewed on appeal only for clear error.
- On the record, the district court did not clearly err in finding Italy was A.M.T.’s habitual residence when Monasky removed her.
Legal Principles
- The Hague Convention’s term “habitual residence” is assessed through a fact-driven totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, not rigid or categorical prerequisites.
- For infants, parental intentions and caregiving circumstances are relevant, but no single factor (including expressed agreement) is dispositive.
- Habitual residence asks where the child is “at home” at the time of removal or retention, based on the child’s life circumstances.
- Habitual-residence determinations are predominantly factual and therefore subject to deferential clear-error review on appeal, supporting prompt resolution of return petitions.
Conclusion
The Court held that a child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention is determined by the totality of the circumstances without any categorical requirement of parental agreement, and that appellate courts must review trial-court habitual-residence findings only for clear error.