Sánchez-Londoño v. González
752 F.3d 533
1st Cir.2014Background
- Mother filed a Hague Convention petition seeking E.G.’s return to Colombia; district court denied and held E.G.’s habitual residence was the United States.
- E.G., born October 2006 in Massachusetts, is a dual United States/Colombia citizen who lived in Massachusetts with her parents for about two years.
- Mother temporarily moved to Colombia in December 2008 with E.G. for a hoped-for expedited U.S. residency, planning a brief stay but remained for two-and-a-half years.
- Father, a Dominican Republic national who became a U.S. citizen, moved to the United States with E.G. in May 2011 after the family relocated; he later separated from the mother and married McShane.
- In 2012–2013 the Middlesex Probate and Family Court awarded the father sole custody, while the mother pursued visa efforts and a waiver that was eventually denied; the Hague petition was filed May 3, 2013.
- The district court concluded E.G.’s habitual residence immediately before retention was the United States, and the retention was not wrongful under the Hague Convention; the mother appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E.G.’s habitual residence was the United States or Colombia prior to retention | Sánchez-Londoño argues Colombia was E.G.’s habitual residence due to acclimatization. | González argues shared parental intent kept E.G. in the United States. | Habits: United States; shared intent control. |
| Role of shared parental intent in establishing habitual residence | Mother contends the district court erred by not giving sufficient weight to her intent for Colombia. | Father asserts both parents intended E.G. to remain in the United States. | District court’s finding of shared intent to live in the United States affirmed. |
| Effect of acclimatization on habitual residence where shared intent exists | Mother argues acclimatization to Colombia could establish Colombia as habitual residence. | Father contends acclimatization is only a secondary factor when there is no abandonment of U.S. residence. | Acclimatization plus shared intent supports United States as habitual residence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re O’Donnell, 728 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2013) (deferential review of district court factual findings; mixed questions awaited de novo review)
- Darín v. Olivero-Huffman, 746 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (habitual residence analysis; standard for overturning findings)
- Neergaard-Colón v. Neergaard, 752 F.3d 526 (1st Cir. 2014) (habitu al residence as mixed question; de novo review of ultimate determination)
- Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010) (begins with shared intent; acclimatization as secondary factor)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (acclimatization may show habitual residence despite parental intent; caution about abandonment)
- Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (conditional intent analysis for temporary stays)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (purpose of Hague Convention; returns not merits of custody)