Case No. 18-1109 | Ariz.
Preview by Summer Flowers
The central issues in Monasky v. Taglieri are (1) which standard of review courts should apply to a trial court’s habitual residence determination under the Hague Convention and (2) whether a subjective agreement between an infant’s parents is necessary to determine the infant’s country of habitual residence when the infant is too young to acclimate to their surroundings. The Hague Convention protects children who are wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence by returning children to that country and allowing local courts to determine custody disputes. Brief for Respondent at 16, Monasky v. Taglieri, No 18-935 (U.S. filed October 7, 2019).
Here, Taglieri and Monasky married in Illinois and moved to Italy. While in Italy, Monasky gave birth to their daughter. Before reaching a subjective agreement about their child’s future home, Monasky took their daughter to the United States without Taglieri’s permission. Taglieri filed a petition seeking his daughter’s return to Italy under the Hague Convention. The district court granted Taglieri’s petition to return his daughter to Italy, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In affirming, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on the existing circuit split regarding the standard of review for habitual residence determinations and held that the correct standard of review is clear error. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit created a new circuit split and held that a subjective agreement between an infant’s parents is not necessary to determine the infant’s country of habitual residence when the infant is too young to acclimate to their surroundings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Monasky v. Taglieri to resolve these splits.
On the first issue, Monasky argues de novo review is proper for the district court’s finding of habitual residence because the Supreme Court previously held that a given standard of review governs if (1) there is a “statutory command,” (2) there is a “long history of appellate practice,” and (3) a particular court is “better positioned” to decide this question. Brief for Petitioner at 15, Monasky v. Taglieri, No 18-935 (U.S. filed Aug. 15, 2019) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558, 560 (1988)). Here, Monasky argues that because (1) Congress stressed the importance of interpreting the Hague Convention uniformly, (2) most circuits apply de novo review, and (3) appellate courts are “better positioned” to make these determinations, appellate courts should apply de novo review. Id.
Taglieri argues the Sixth Circuit correctly reviewed the finding of habitual residence using the clear error standard because the Supreme Court previously held that a deferential standard of review applies when courts examine narrow facts, weigh evidence, and make credibility judgments. Brief for Respondent, supra, at 19. Taglieri argues that those factors are present with habitual residence findings. Id. Taglieri also asserts that a deferential standard of review furthers the Hague Convention’s goals of promptly returning children removed from their country of habitual residence and decreases the chances of reversal. Id. at 20.
On the second issue, Monasky argues a subjective agreement is required to determine an infant’s country of habitual residence to discourage forum shopping, align with other country’s highest courts which require a subjective agreement, and comply with the Hague Convention’s requirement that a child’s presence in a country be “settled, continuous, and stable.” Brief for Petitioner, supra, at 16–17. Taglieri responds that no such agreement is necessary because the Hague Convention requires courts to consider other factors, other countries analyze factors other than shared parental intent, and courts can determine parents’ intent by reviewing the objective evidence. Brief for Respondent, supra, at 18. Furthermore, Taglieri argues that requiring a subjective agreement would endanger infants whose parents disagreed on the child’s habitual residence because the infant would lack a country of habitual residence. Id. at 19.
In Monasky v. Taglieri, the Supreme Court will resolve these circuit splits and determine (1) which standard of review courts should apply to habitual residence determinations, and (2) whether a subjective agreement is required to determine an infant’s country of habitual residence.