Monasky v. Taglieri

140 S. Ct. 719 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2011, Monasky (W) and Taglieri (H) were married in the United States. Two years later, they relocated to Italy, where they both found work. Neither had definite plans to return to the United States. During their first year in Italy, H and W lived together in Milan. But the marriage soon deteriorated. H became physically abusive. In May 2014, Monasky became pregnant. H thereafter took up new employment in the town of Lugo. W remained about three hours away in Milan. The long-distance separation and a difficult pregnancy further strained their marriage. W looked into returning to the United States. She applied for jobs there, asked about U. S. divorce lawyers, and obtained cost information from moving companies. A. M. T. was born in February 2015. Shortly thereafter, W announced she wanted a divorce. On March 31, 2015, after another heated argument, W fled with her daughter to the Italian police and sought shelter in a safe house. In a written statement to the police, W alleged that H had abused her and that she feared for her life. Two weeks later, in April 2015, W and two-month-old A. M. T. left Italy for Ohio, where they moved in with W’s parents. An Italian court granted H’s request to terminate W’s parental rights, discrediting her statement to the Italian police. H petitioned the U. S. District Court for the return of A. M. T. to Italy under the Hague Convention, pursuant to 22 U. S. C. §9003(b), on the ground that Italy was her habitual residence. The District Court granted H’s petition after a four-day bench trial. Precedent held that a child habitually resides where the child has become “acclimatized” to her surroundings. But an infant is “too young” to acclimate to her surroundings. The District Court ruled that “the shared intent of the [parents] is relevant in determining the habitual residence of an infant,” though “particular facts and circumstances might necessitate the consideration [of] other factors.” The court held that until the day W fled she had “no definitive plans” to raise A. M. T. in the United States. The District Court ordered A. M. T.’s prompt return to Italy. In December 2016, A. M. T., nearly two years old, was returned to Italy and placed in H’s care. W appealed and the appeals court affirmed. It affirmed that an infant’s habitual residence depends on “shared parental intent.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard for habitual residence.