Faisal Ahmed v. Mardia Mohsin Ahmed
867 F.3d 682
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Husband (Ahmed) is a UK citizen; wife (Mrs. Ahmed) is a U.S. citizen residing in Knoxville. Twins were born in Knoxville in Nov. 2014.
- Mrs. Ahmed previously lived and worked in London (2011–2013), obtained Indefinite Leave to Remain in the U.K., and began steps to practice optometry there; marriage deteriorated in 2013–2014.
- Mrs. Ahmed traveled to Knoxville in May 2014; husband visited 3-months in Oct. 2014, then returned to U.K. when his visa expired; Mrs. Ahmed remained in Tennessee with the twins.
- Family traveled to the U.K. May–July 2015; the twins (infants) stayed in the U.K. only seven–eight weeks before Mrs. Ahmed flew with them to the U.S. on Aug. 4, 2015.
- Mr. Ahmed petitioned under the Hague Convention/ICARA for return of the children, claiming wrongful retention from their habitual residence (U.K.); district court held hearing and denied return; Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ahmed) | Defendant's Argument (Mrs. Ahmed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.K. was the twins’ habitual residence when Mrs. Ahmed retained them (Aug. 4, 2015) | The U.K. was habitual residence based on parents’ prior mutual intent to live in U.K., Mrs. Ahmed’s ILR and professional steps there | Twins were too young to acclimatize; parents’ intent had diverged before and after conception; longer, more settled residence in U.S. | Affirmed: Petitioner failed to prove U.K. was habitual residence under either acclimatization or shared parental intent standards |
| Appropriate legal standard for especially young children lacking cognizance | N/A (issue raised by court) | N/A | For very young children, courts may consider parents’ settled mutual intent because acclimatization is often inapplicable; Sixth Circuit adopts that approach for such cases |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in factual findings about shared intent and acclimatization | N/A | N/A | No clear error; district court’s factual findings that mutual intent was unclear or absent are supported by record |
| Burden of proof under ICARA for return relief | N/A | N/A | Petitioner must prove wrongful retention from habitual residence by preponderance; Ahmed failed that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (articulates acclimatization test and focuses on child’s past experience)
- Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (applies acclimatization; notes inadequacy for infants)
- March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001) (ICARA burden and Hague Convention return standard)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993) (focus on child’s residency and social environment)
- Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (discusses limits of parental intent; recognizes intent as surrogate for very young children)
- Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (defines shared parental "settled mutual intent" approach)
- Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010) (addresses parental intent and habitual residence for young children)
- Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013) (endorses parental intent approach for very young children)