Neergaard v. Neergaard Colon
752 F.3d 526
1st Cir.2014Background
- Mother US citizen; father Danish; two daughters born in Massachusetts; lived in Singapore 2012–2014 due to father's temporary assignment.
- Family maintained Boston properties, U.S. bank accounts, retirement accounts, and the mother kept her Boston public-school position; father maintained green card.
- Family traveled to the U.S. during Christmas 2012 and summer 2013; January 2014 they remained in the United States instead of returning to Singapore.
- Father petitioned for return under the Hague Convention in February 2014; district court granted; appellate stay issued in March 2014.
- District court held Singapore as the children's habitual residence; the mother challenged the analysis, arguing failure to assess abandonment vs retention of the U.S. habitual residence; court remanded for further fact-finding.
- This opinion vacates and remands for a complete habitual-residence determination, with no costs awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly determined habitual residence. | Neergaard-Colón argues failure to assess abandonment/retention. | Neergaard argues intent to acquire habitual residence in Singapore. | Remanded; habitual-residence analysis incomplete. |
| Role of acclimatization in very young children's habitual residence. | Acclimatization evidence supports Singapore residence. | Acclimatization is insufficient without clear parental intent. | Remand to evaluate parental intent alongside acclimatization. |
| Whether parties retained U.S. habitual residence during temporary Singapore stay. | Intended to retain U.S. habitual residence. | Intended to abandon U.S. residence for temporary Singapore stay. | Remand; determine abandonment vs retention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010) (analysis begins with parents' shared intent)
- Darín v. Olivero-Huffman, 746 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (acclimatization and intent interplay in habitual residence)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (importance of intent over mere absence; abandonment vs temporary absence)
- Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) (settled intention to stay for the foreseeable future may establish habitual residence)
- Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (abandonment analysis in habitual-residence inquiry)
- Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (lack of shared intent to abandon U.S. residence)
- Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (shared intent time frame for determining habitual residence)