## Facts

- Ivan Nicholas Robert, a French citizen, and Gayle M. Tesson, a U.S. citizen, were married and are the parents of twin sons born in Houston, Texas in 1997.
- The family maintained ties to both the United States and France, including property and renovation efforts in France (Mas Verdoline) and recurring residence and schooling in the United States.
- Over several years, the children experienced multiple moves and periods of living and attending school in each country.
- In the approximately ten months preceding the dispute, the children spent most of their time in the United States; the final stay in France immediately before the removal lasted roughly three weeks.
- During the 2003 France stay, the French home remained under renovation and was not fully habitable.
- After a domestic dispute in France, Tesson left with the children and returned to the United States, later residing in Ohio and initiating separation proceedings there.
- Robert initiated proceedings in France and filed a federal petition in Ohio under the Hague Convention and ICARA seeking the children’s return to France, alleging wrongful removal/retention.
- The district court denied relief, concluding the children were not habitually resident in France at the time of removal; Robert appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard to determine the children’s “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention.
2. Whether, under the correct standard, the children’s habitual residence immediately before removal was France or the United States.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held the district court employed an incorrect habitual-residence framework by placing excessive weight on parental intent and relying on an intent-centered approach from other circuits.
- Applying the correct, child-centered standard to the district court’s factual findings, the Sixth Circuit concluded the children’s habitual residence at the relevant time was the United States.
- The court affirmed the denial of the petition for return because Robert failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that France was the children’s habitual residence immediately before removal.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Convention, removal or retention is “wrongful” only if it breaches custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence immediately before the removal or retention.
- “Habitual residence” is determined primarily by the child’s actual past experience, including acclimatization and a degree of settled purpose from the child’s perspective, rather than by the parents’ disputed or unilateral future intentions.
- A change in habitual residence does not require “unequivocal” evidence; under ICARA, habitual residence is established by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Where the record contains extensive factual findings, an appellate court may apply the correct legal standard to those findings to determine habitual residence.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of the Hague/ICARA return petition, clarifying that habitual residence in this circuit depends on the child’s objective acclimatization and settled purpose, and holding that the twins’ stronger and more continuous integration in the United States made it their habitual residence at the time of removal.


Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007)