Colin Smith v. Sarah Smith
976 F.3d 558
5th Cir.2020Background
- Colin and Sarah Smith (U.S. citizens) married in 2008, moved their family to Argentina in June 2017, and separated in May 2018. An Argentinian court entered a divorce decree providing for shared custody.
- In July 2019 Sarah brought the children to Texas (initially with Colin’s permission to attend a funeral) and remained in the U.S. with them.
- Colin filed a Hague Convention petition in the N.D. Texas on October 1, 2019, seeking the children’s return to Argentina as their habitual residence.
- At bench trial the district court found facts favoring Sarah: all parties remained U.S. citizens, no Argentine property or family ties, children attended an American-style school in Buenos Aires, the parents signed a two-year lease (did not buy), and the Argentine decree did not require residence in Argentina.
- The district court concluded the children did not habitually reside in Argentina and found the two oldest children were old/mature enough to object and did object. Colin appealed, arguing the district court applied a shared-intent test rather than the correct totality-of-the-circumstances test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Colin) | Defendant's Argument (Sarah) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for habitual residence | District court wrongly applied a "shared intent" test; court should use totality of circumstances | District court’s factual approach acceptable; totality supports its decision | Totality-of-the-circumstances is the correct standard (Monasky); apply clear-error review to district court’s factual findings |
| Whether Argentina was the children’s habitual residence | Argentine divorce decree and two years’ residence demonstrate Argentina was habitual residence | Factors (U.S. citizenship, employment contract with U.S. ties, U.S. property, American school, temporary intent) show Argentina was not habitual residence | Under totality of circumstances, no clear error in district court’s finding that Argentina was not the habitual residence; affirmed |
| Oldest children’s maturity and objection | District court lacked sufficient evidence that two oldest were mature and objected | District court’s finding that they were mature and objected was supported | Fifth Circuit declined to resolve because disposition does not require reaching this issue; district court’s finding not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020) (habitual residence is determined by totality of the circumstances; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (prior Fifth Circuit emphasis on parents’ shared intent approach)
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014) (explaining Hague Convention’s aim to secure prompt return of wrongfully removed children)
- Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing Convention’s procedural return remedy from merits of custody)
- Delgado v. Osuna, 837 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2016) (describing standard of review for mixed questions involving habitual residence)