Term: 2019
Docket: 18-935
Monasky v. Taglieri
- Pro
18-935 MONASKY V. TAGLIERI DECISION BELOW: 907 F.3d 404 CERT. GRANTED 6/10/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires that any child wrongfully removed from her country of "habitual residence" be returned to that country. A.M.T. was eight weeks old when she traveled with her mother, Michelle Monasky, from a domestic-violence safe house in Italy to her grandparents' home in Ohio. Monasky's husband, from whom she had fled, filed a petition under the Hague Convention seeking A.M.T.’s return to Italy. The district court found that A.M.T. had not acclimated to living in Italy and made no finding that her parents had ever agreed that she would be raised in Italy. The court nevertheless ruled that the existence of a "matrimonial home" presumptively established Italy as A.M.T.'s habitual residence. In a fractured 10-8 opinion, the en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed after reviewing the district court's determination of habitual residence only for clear error and holding that a "subjective agreement" between the parents to raise A.M.T. in Italy was not necessary to establish that A.M.T. was habitually resident in Italy. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a district court's determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the First Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held. 2. Where an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, whether a subjective agreement between the infant's parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-4128
The U.S. Supreme Court case Monasky v. Taglieri, 2019, revolved around the interpretation of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction and its application to a dispute between an American mother (Michelle Monasky) and Italian father (Domenico Taglieri). The couple had a child in Italy but after their relationship deteriorated, Monasky fled to Ohio with the baby. Taglieri filed for custody in Italy and petitioned for return under the Hague Convention which aims to protect children from wrongful removal across international borders by returning them to their country of "habitual residence". The key issue was defining what constituted habitual residence as there is no standard definition within US law or convention text itself. In this case, lower courts ruled that it was where parents intended their child's home be located - thus favoring Taglieri since they lived together as family in Italy before separation occurred. However, upon reaching Supreme Court level it was decided that determination should not solely rely on parental intent but also consider total circumstances surrounding child's life; therefore remanding back down for further proceedings.
In the dissenting opinion for Monasky v. Taglieri, Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision to adopt a fact-intensive standard for determining habitual residence under The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. He argued that this approach was inconsistent with the text of the treaty and would lead to unpredictable outcomes due to its subjective nature. Instead, he proposed an objective legal standard based on parental intent or agreement at the time of removal or retention which would provide more certainty and better align with international interpretations of 'habitual residence'. Furthermore, he criticized how lower courts have been applying different standards inconsistently leading to confusion and unpredictability in child abduction cases.
