Domenico Taglieri v. Michelle Monasky
907 F.3d 404
6th Cir.2018Background
- Parents (Taglieri, Italian; Monasky, American) married, moved to Italy in 2013, and had daughter A.M.T. in February 2015.
- Marital relations were acrimonious and included alleged physical abuse; parents lived in separate towns in Italy by late pregnancy.
- Mother took eight-week-old A.M.T. to the United States in March 2015; father filed an Italian action and then a Hague Convention petition in U.S. federal court seeking the child's return.
- District court held a four-day bench trial and found, based on the parents' shared intent, that Italy was A.M.T.’s habitual residence and granted the return petition.
- En banc Sixth Circuit affirms: habitual-residence inquiry is factual; infant too young to acclimatize so the court applied a shared-parental-intent test and found no clear error in the district court’s finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taglieri) | Defendant's Argument (Monasky) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.M.T. was habitually resident in Italy when removed | Italy was the habitual residence based on parents’ shared intent to live and raise child there (matrimonial home, jobs, preparations) | No meeting of the minds on child’s residence; mother planned to return to U.S.; district court misweighed factors and should be reviewed de novo | Italy is the child’s habitual residence; district court’s factual finding affirmed under clear-error review |
| Proper legal standard for infants who cannot acclimatize | Apply shared parental intent as factual inquiry to identify where parents intended child to live | Agrees shared-intent standard applies but argues district court should be remanded to apply Ahmed standard in the first instance | Habitual-residence is a question of fact; shared parental intent is appropriate for infants; appellate court will defer to district court absent clear error |
| Standard of review for habitual-residence determination | Findings are factual—review for clear error | Argues ultimate determination involves legal mixed questions and merits de novo review | Court applies deferential clear-error review to district court factfinding; rejects de novo review plea |
| Whether a presumption should protect infants from being left without a habitual residence | N/A (Taglieri seeks return under Convention) | Advocates against a presumption that infants lack habitual residence; urges caution that strict two-part test may leave infants unprotected; seeks remand | Court rejects creating a presumption against habitual residence for infants and upholds district court’s evaluation of objective indicia of parental intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 867 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2017) (adopts two-step framework: acclimatization first; if impracticable for infants, examine shared parental intent)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (acclimatization test for habitual residence where child may have lived in multiple countries)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993) (habitual residence inquiries are fact-intensive; focuses on child’s perspective)
- Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizes that a child born where parents are habitually resident normally acquires that habitual residence)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (explains Hague Convention purpose to return children to their habitual residence for custody resolution)