## Facts

- Two Israeli citizen parents married in 1982 and had four children.
- The family lived in Israel until 1997.
- In April 1997, with the father’s consent, the mother moved with the children to Los Angeles, where she leased a home, obtained vehicles, and enrolled the children in school; the father remained in Israel, funded key expenses, and stayed at the Los Angeles home when visiting.
- The parents agreed the stay in the United States would last 15 months, but disputed what, if anything, was agreed about residence after that period.
- In April 1998, the mother filed for dissolution and custody in California state court; the court granted temporary custody to the mother and restrained the father from removing the children from Southern California.
- The father then filed a federal petition under the Hague Convention (as implemented by ICARA) seeking the children’s return to Israel.
- By agreement, the oldest child returned to Israel; the dispute on appeal involved the three younger children.
- The district court denied the return petition, concluding the children’s habitual residence had shifted to the United States.

## Issues

1. What legal standard governs whether children have changed “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention when the parents initially agreed to a time-limited move abroad.
2. Whether the children’s habitual residence changed from Israel to the United States such that retention in California was not “wrongful” under the Hague Convention.
3. Whether the district court erred by relying primarily on the children’s acclimatization rather than determining whether the parents shared a settled intention to abandon Israel as the habitual residence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the district court applied an incorrect standard for determining habitual residence.
- The court vacated the judgment denying the return petition and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court directed the district court to determine habitual residence by evaluating (1) the parents’ shared, settled intention regarding residence and (2) the children’s acclimatization, with parental intent as the threshold inquiry in most cases involving young children.

## Legal Principles

- “Habitual residence” under the Hague Convention turns primarily on whether the parents shared a settled intention to abandon the prior habitual residence and establish a new one.
- A child generally does not acquire a new habitual residence absent mutual parental intent to abandon the prior one; courts should be cautious about inferring abandonment from a child’s contacts alone when the move was temporary or experimental.
- Acclimatization and an appreciable passage of time in the new country are relevant, but ordinarily do not substitute for the absence of shared parental intent, especially for young children who cannot meaningfully choose their residence.
- The Hague Convention’s return remedy depends on identifying the child’s habitual residence immediately before the alleged wrongful removal or retention and whether custody rights under that place’s law were breached.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required a parental-intent-centered habitual-residence analysis under the Hague Convention, holding that the district court gave undue weight to the children’s life in California without first resolving whether both parents had a shared, settled intention to abandon Israel as the children’s habitual residence, and remanded for application of the proper standard.


Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)