Edelstein v. Nelson
2:25-cv-00003
| D. Nev. | May 16, 2025Background
- Petitioner Alexis Edelstein and Respondent Tara Michelle Nelson are parents of infant E.E., who was born in Argentina.
- In September 2024, the family traveled from Argentina to Nevada, USA, on a one-way ticket, with no set return date.
- Edelstein filed a petition under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention of E.E. in Nevada by Nelson.
- The central dispute was whether E.E. was wrongfully retained in the U.S., making his return to Argentina required.
- Magistrate Judge Couvillier, after an evidentiary hearing and post-hearing briefs, recommended denying Edelstein’s petition and related requests for fees.
- The District Court adopted the R&R, finding E.E.’s habitual residence was in the U.S. at the relevant time and denying all relief to Edelstein.
Issues
| Issue | Edelstein's Argument | Nelson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was E.E. wrongfully retained in the U.S.? | E.E.’s habitual residence remained Argentina; stay in U.S. was temporary. | Parties agreed to move and live in U.S.; life was re-established there. | No wrongful retention; habitual residence became U.S. |
| Was there a mutual agreement to reside in the U.S.? | No agreement; trip was for a set time, planning to return. | Agreement via phone/text in Nov. 2024 to stay in U.S.; credible testimony. | Found credible agreement to reside in U.S. |
| What factors determine E.E.’s habitual residence? | Employment unchanged, belongings left in Argentina, no U.S. home purchase, short time in U.S. | Created home in U.S. (nursery, office, medical), stayed longer, U.S. family support. | Totality of circumstances supports U.S. as habitual residence. |
| Should procedural or additional hearings be granted? | Sought further evidence, new hearing, cited missed exhibits. | All evidence was available, already considered. | No additional hearings; request denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020) (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances test for habitual residence under Hague Convention)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (sets framework for determining wrongful removal or retention)
- Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (birthplace alone does not determine infant’s habitual residence; focus is on acclimatization)
- Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009) (purpose of Hague Convention is to avoid international forum shopping)
- Valenzuela v. Michel, 736 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (central purpose is prompt return to habitual residence for custody disputes)