Monasky v. Taglieri
140 S. Ct. 719
| SCOTUS | 2020Background
- Michelle Monasky (U.S. citizen) and Domenico Taglieri (Italian) married and moved from the U.S. to Italy; they lived in Milan and later Lugo.
- Their daughter A.M.T. was born in Italy in Feb. 2015; Monasky alleges Taglieri became physically abusive.
- Monasky fled with two‑month‑old A.M.T. to Ohio in April 2015; Taglieri sought the child's return under the Hague Convention, claiming Italy was the child's habitual residence.
- The U.S. District Court concluded the parents shared an intent for the child to live in Italy and ordered return; the en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court addressed (1) whether an actual parental agreement is required to establish an infant's habitual residence, and (2) the proper standard of appellate review; it affirmed the Sixth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Monasky) | Defendant's Argument (Taglieri) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an actual parental agreement is required to establish an infant's "habitual residence" | Habitual residence requires an actual parental "meeting of the minds" about where to raise the child | Habitual residence may be established by shared intent and other facts showing the child was "at home" in the country | No categorical actual‑agreement requirement; habitual residence is a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances, fact‑driven inquiry (place where child is "at home") |
| Standard of appellate review for a first‑instance habitual‑residence finding | De novo review is needed to promote uniform international interpretation | Deferential review (clear error) is appropriate because the inquiry is heavily factual | Mixed question largely factual → clear‑error (deferential) review on appeal |
| Whether case should be remanded for reanalysis under the Court's standard | Remand or reversal to apply totality test afresh | Affirm because the District Court had a full record and its factual findings are sound | Affirmed without remand: record was exhaustive, factual findings supported return, and expedition favors finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985) (treaty interpretation begins with text and context)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (use of negotiation/drafting history in treaty interpretation)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (Convention's objects and purposes; custody decisions in child's habitual residence)
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014) (Hague Convention context and purpose)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (return under Hague Convention does not moot appeal)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (acclimatization approach referenced by lower courts)
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 867 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2017) (Sixth Circuit precedent on shared parental intent for infants)
- Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2006) (habitual residence as place where child is at home)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis on parental intent in habitual‑residence analysis)
- Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting rigid rules; fact‑sensitive inquiry)