Cascio v Pace, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 197724 (N.D.Ill.)[Italy] [Rights of Custody] [Public Service Org] [Consent] [well settled] [Petition denied]

                                                      
In Cascio v Pace,  --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 197724 (N.D.Ill.)  Petitioners, Silvestre Cascio and an Italian public services agency, Azienda Servizi Alla Persona Ambito 9 ("ASP"), petitioned for return of Cascio's two minor children, FC and MC, who were residing in Rockford, Illinois with their mother, respondent Rosa Maria Pace. The district court denied the petition.

Cascio was a citizen and permanent resident of Italy. Pace was born in Rockford, Illinois, and had dual U.S. and Italian citizenship. Cascio and Pace married in late 2000. The children were both born in Italy, and both had dual U.S. and Italian citizenship. Between 2000 and 2012, the family lived in Italy, with Cascio providing for the economic needs of the family and Pace acting as a homemaker. In September 2010, Cascio and Pace got into a physical altercation which began with Cascio kicking Pace in her backside and resulted in Pace calling the police. After a police investigation, the matter was referred to the Italian minors court who appointed ASP to monitor and supervise the children, provide support to the parents in parenting skills, and to provide marital mediation between Cascio and Pace. ASP also had to approve, and in turn seek judicial approval of, any decision to move the children. ASP never removed the children from the physical custody of their parents.   During nearly all of the summers between 2000 and 2012, the family vacationed in Rockford, where Pace's mother and extended family lived, for approximately three months at a time. In June 2012, Pace brought the children to Rockford for a summer vacation after informing ASP that she would return on September 2, 2012. Cascio joined Pace and the children on July 27, 2012. The entire family had tickets to return to Italy on September 2, 2012. In late August, Cascio and Pace had an argument in the presence of the children, wherein Pace made it known that she would prefer not to return to Italy, but rather wanted the family to relocate to the United States. Despite that argument, and continued tension for the remainder of the vacation, Pace began packing to return the family to Italy in early September. On the morning of September 2, 2012, Pace informed Cascio that she and the children would not be returning to Italy with him that afternoon, and asked that he move to the United States and stay with them. After a period of silence, and then some discussion, Cascio indicated that he consented to her staying in the United States (which he testified meant the children would remain as well) and would move with her to Rockford. Following the meeting, Cascio made a phone call, packed his clothing, and rode to the airport with Nunzio Pace, where he boarded a plane and left for Italy. Pace testified that Cascio returned to Italy to dispose of their property and see to his job, but promised he would return by no later than Christmas. Indeed, Pace and Nunzio Pace both testified that Cascio discussed local employment opportunities and even what car he would like to purchase in the United States on the drive to the airport. Cascio, on the other hand, testified that he only agreed to permit Pace to stay because he felt he was under duress, alone as he was, at the time of the meeting and that he needed to agree in order to be able to catch
his flight. He also testified that he thought he could subsequently change Pace's
mind and he never had any intention of relocating to the United States or
consenting to the children's permanent relocation. Beginning the next day, Cascio made it clear to Pace that he would not be returning to the United States and that he
wanted her and the children to rejoin him in Italy. Pace made it equally clear
that she did not plan to return to Italy with the children. ASP was informed of
Pace's failure to return on October 1, 2012, after the family missed an ASP-ordered appointment with a psychologist. ASP and Cascio filed a joint petition pursuant to the Hague Convention on September 27, 2013, a few weeks more than a year after Pace and the children failed to return from Rockford. Cascio has remained in contact with the children through Skype and telephone calls.

  Pace  offered proof as to the children's life in Rockford, which was 
relevant to one of the exceptions in the Hague Convention. MC, the younger child, was four years old, enrolled in pre-school, and spent considerable time with Pace's family and extended family in Rockford. MC spoke English almost exclusively, despite Pace and Nunzio Pace's attempt to keep him bilingual. Similarly, FC, the elder child, was enrolled in his second year of school in Rockford, participated in activities, spent time with friends, attended church, and also spends time with Pace's family. According to Pace, FC struggled with English when he first arrived, but quickly caught on and now remains bilingual. Cascio testified, however, that FC spends more time in the home, seems bored, and is not as active as he was in Italy. As to the children's living conditions, Pace and the children live with Pace's mother. Pace works full-time as a bank teller, making $10.24 an hour. The children currently lack health insurance, but are currently provided healthcare by a state program and are in good health. Pace's mother financially assists Pace. The unrebutted testimony at trial was that, based on Pace's family support structure and her own employment, the children were well-provided for in Rockford and enjoy regular outings and significant stability in their lives.

The parties agreed that the children's place of habitual residence was Italy immediately prior to their retention in the United States.  The parties agreed that
Cascio had rights of custody, but Pace objected that ASP's rights were "more of a
supervisor than a custodian" and thus "should not be considered by this Court to
be a custodian." Based on the controlling case law, the court rejected that argument. The unchallenged testimony concerning ASP's obligations to the children included the fact that the family was not permitted to move the children without first obtaining leave from ASP and the minors court. That was sufficient in and of itself-the Supreme Court has held that the right to veto a child's move, a so-called ne exeat right, qualifies as being a right of custody under the Hague Convention as the right to "determine the child's place of residence." See Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 10-21, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 176 L.Ed.2d 789 (2010). Although Pace correctly pointed out that ASP never exercised the authority, the uncontroverted testimony also suggested that ASP had the authority to remove the children from their parents' care had it been determined necessary to protect the welfare of the children. Accordingly, ASP  proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it also had "rights of custody" on which it may base a petition for return. See E. Sussex Children Servs. v. Morris, 919 F.Supp.2d 721, 730-31 (N.D.W.Va.2013) (collecting cases which hold that public social services organizations can have "rights of custody" under the Convention). The court found that both Cascio and ASP were exercising their custody rights at the time of the retention.   Consequently, both petitioners met their burden to show a prima facie case for wrongful retention of the children in the United States.

Pace first argued that the children should not be returned to Italy, notwithstanding the prima facie proof, because Cascio consented to the children remaining in the United States."The consent exception applies when a petitioning parent, either expressly or through his conduct, agrees to a removal or retention before it takes place." Walker, 701 F.3d at 1122.   Cascio argued that his agreement was given under duress and that his subsequent conduct showed that he never actually consented to the retention. Based upon, inter alia, Cascio's admitted willingness to invent testimony under oath to shade the truth in his favor, the court found Cascio's testimony to be without credibility.  The court found that Cascio expressly consented
to the retention before it occurred, and that his later change of heart is
irrelevant. The court found that Pace had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the retention of the children was not wrongful, based on consent, as against Cascio's rights of custody. This conclusion did not end the matter, as there was no evidence that ASP ever consented to, or thereafter acquiesced in, the retention of the children in the United States. The court found that Pace had not proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the retention of the children was not wrongful,
based on consent, as against ASP's rights of custody.

The Court observed for the “settled” defense to apply, Pace had to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that (1) the petition for return was filed more than
a year after the retention; and (2) the children were settled in their new
environment in Rockford. See Habrzyk, 759 F.Supp.2d at 1028-29. Here, although the retention began on September 2, 2012 and the petition was not filed until September 27, 2013, Petitioners argued that some form of equitable tolling should apply to reduce the approximately thirteen months between the retention and the filing to some amount of time less than a year, thereby making the exception inapplicable. The Court observed that even those cases which permit equitable tolling do so only where there is evidence of fraudulent concealment, that is, where there is evidence that the abducting parent took affirmative steps to conceal their location from the other parent (and presumably others who have rights of custody). See Duarte, 526 F.3d at 570.  Here, there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment, Pace took no affirmative steps to hide the children's location from either Cascio or ASP. Accordingly, even if equitable tolling applies in the event of fraudulent concealment (an issue on which the court passed no judgment), that would nevertheless provide no relief to Cascio or ASP. The factors courts consider in determining if a child has significant
 connections to the new country include: (1) the child's age; (2) the stability
 and duration of the child's residence in the new environment; (3) whether the
 child attends school or day care consistently; (4) whether the child has friends
 and relatives in the new area; (5) the child's participation in community or
 extracurricular school activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school
 clubs; and (6) the respondent's employment and financial stability. Id. As to the age of the children, FC was nine as of the time of briefing and MC was four. Although Cascio argued that MC's young age cut in favor of finding that Pace has not met her burden, courts have been far from consistent in whether they consider a young age to be in favor of a finding of settled. See Broca v. Giron, No. 11 CV 5818(SJ)(JMA), 2013 WL 867276, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013). Although MC's age might raise an
inference that he was less likely to form an attachment to a particular place, in
this case, the testimony revealed that MC switched to English as his primary
language. His mother and Nunzio Pace both indicated that they had struggled to
keep him bilingual in Italian but had been largely unsuccessful thus far. Thus,
the court founds that MC's young age did not weigh against applying the exception.
As to the second, third, fourth, and fifth factors, they all weighed in favor of finding that Pace has met her burden to show that the children were settled.  The sixth factor, Pace's employment and financial situation, was somewhat more complicated. Pace was employed full time and making slightly more than ten dollars an hour. However, she admitted in her petition for divorce that she lacked the capability to provide for her family by herself. Also, the court was concerned that the children lacked health insurance, notwithstanding Pace's testimony that they were in good health and receive some health care from a state program. In contrast, however, it was clear that Pace receives support from her sizeable family in the area and there was no testimony to support the conclusion that the family support is in any danger of ending.  Balancing those factors, the court found that Pace met her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were settled in their new environment in Rockford, Illinois. The petition was denied.

Slight v. Noonkester, 2014 WL 282642 (D.Mont.)[Ireland] [Wrongful Retention] [Chasing order] [Well-Settled] [Petition Denied]

In Slight v. Noonkester, 2014 WL 282642 (D.Mont.) Petitioner David Slight ("David") filed Petition for Return of Child against Respondent Ingrid Noonkester
("Ingrid")  David is an Irish citizen who has resided in Dublin all of his life. Ingrid
 was a Lithuanian citizen who at some point moved to Dublin. In June 2004, David
 and Ingrid met and began a relationship. David and Ingrid lived together until their separation in January of 2010. In November of 2005, David and Ingrid's son, L.S., was born.  After their separation, David and Ingrid shared responsibilities as to L.S.'
 upbringing. Ingrid exercised custody the majority of the time. In May 2012, the parties arranged for Ingrid to leave L.S. in  David's custody on May 25, 2012. However, Ingrid never arrived at the designated  location with L.S. Instead, on May 25, 2012, Ingrid and L.S. boarded a plane and  flew to the United States, with their ultimate destination being Brady, Montana.  The purpose of traveling to Montana was to move in with Alan Noonkester  ("Alan"). Alan and Ingrid decided to live together after meeting on the
 internet. . Ingrid only decided to move L.S. out of Ireland after consulting materials
 provided by Treoir, which is an Irish organization that supplies information to  unmarried parents. The materials informed Ingrid that under Irish  law, the mother is the sole guardian of a child born unto unmarried parents.  Accordingly, unless the father petitions a court for joint guardianship, the  mother can remove the child from Ireland without the father's permission.  David had no knowledge of Ingrid's plans, nor did he ever consent to L.S.'  departure from Ireland. In addition, at no time prior to L.S.' departure did  David ever apply to an Irish court for guardianship, custody, or access.

At some point in 2012, David filed a  petition for L.S.' return with the Irish Government. David claimed that this  petition was denied due to the fact that David was not a guardian of L.S. at the  time of the abduction.  On June 5, 2012, David applied to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court  for both sole custody of L.S. and to be named his guardian. On September 11, 2012, the Dublin Court appointed David as both joint  custodian and joint guardian of L.S.  In the order appointing  David joint custodian, the Court stated that:  Provided that the party to whom custody/access of the said child(ren) is hereby given shall not remove the said child(ren) from the jurisdiction of this Court without having first obtained in writing of the other party or the leave of this Court or of any other Court of competent jurisdiction.  On April 15, 2013, David filed an application for access under the Hague  Convention with the Ireland Department of Justice and Equality.

After their arrival in the United States, Ingrid and L.S. moved to Brady,  Montana, to move in with Alan. Ingrid and Alan married in August of 2012.  While in Brady, L.S. attended school in the Dutton/Brady School District  from August 2012 until February 2013. After his arrival in Montana, L.S. developed a close relationship with Alan.  L.S. and Alan have good relationship, with the two participating in typical  father-son activities. L.S.  also developed close and meaningful  relationships with Alan's two children from a prior relationship. L.S. also has developed close ties with his step-grandparents. In February 2013, Alan, Ingrid, and L.S. moved to Worden, Montana, so that  Alan could take a job at the Signal Peak coal mine. In the fall of 2013, L.S.  enrolled at the Huntley Project Elementary School. L.S. had done well at school  and obtained good grades. Despite being in second grade, he read eighth grade-level chapter books.  After his move to Worden, L.S. developed more close ties to family members. Ingrid and L.S. did not face an immediate threat of deportation. Ingrid and  Alan visited the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Field Office in
 Helena, where they receive assurances that Ingrid was in the country legally. She
 did face several restrictions, such as being unable to work and if she leaves
 the U.S., she will not be allowed to return. Therefore, Ingrid did not hold
 employment and was a homemaker. Ingrid was in the process of applying for status
 as a permanent resident for herself and L.S. 

  David filed the Petition and commenced the action on December 27,
 2013. Ingrid filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, arguing that under Irish law, L.S.' removal could  not have been unlawful as David did not have any custodial rights. David  conceded that Ingrid did not wrongfully remove L.S. from Ireland, but responded  that Ingrid wrongfully retained L.S. after the Dublin Court named David as a  joint custodian and joint guardian. The Court found that David's claim failed because Ingrid had not retained L.S. in violation  of David's rights of custody.  David conceded that Ingrid did not wrongfully remove L.S. when she left  Ireland on May 25, 2012. When determining a party's custody rights in the  child's prior habitual residence, the Court must look to that country's law.  Hague Convention, Art. 14; see also Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 456 (1st  Cir.2000). In Ireland, if a child is born to unmarried parents, only the mother  is the guardian of the child. Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Part II, s 6(4)  (Act No. 7/1964) (Ir.), available at http://
 www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/index.html. The unmarried father
 may petition a court to be appointed guardian and secure custody rights.  Id.,
 Part II, s 11; see also Redmond v.. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir.2013).
 Accordingly, if an unmarried Irish father fails to apply for an order granting
 him custody prior to his child's departure from Ireland, than that removal is
 not unlawful. J. McB. v. L.E., [2010] IESC 48, P 32(Ir.). Since David did not
 apply to be named a guardian over L.S. prior to May 25, 2012, Ingrid's removal
 of L.S. was not wrongful.

David relied on a wrongful retention theory. David argued that while
 Ingrid's removal of L.S. was not wrongful, the September 11, 2012 Dublin Court
 orders appointing him joint guardian made Ingrid's retention of L.S. in the U.S.
 wrongful and in violation of Irish law. The Court rejected David's  argument.
This was not a typical wrongful retention claim. When a party applies for custody after the other parent leaves the country, the subsequent order is referred to as a "chasing order." Courts typically do  not give deference to chasing orders. See Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 231  n.3 (3d Cir.1995) (where neither the trial or appellate court considered an  order granting custody that the father obtained from an Australian court after  the mother and child had left for the U.S.). "[C]ourts have repeatedly assumed  rights of custody for purposes of Article 3 of the Convention means rights of  custody at the time of removal." White v. White, 718 F.3d 300, 307 (4th  Cir.2013).
The Court observed that there is nothing in the Convention requiring the recognition of an ex post    facto custody order of foreign jurisdictions. In Redmond, a factually similar case dealing with unmarried parents in  Ireland, the Seventh Circuit did not give weight to an Irish court's order  granting the father joint guardianship after the mother and child had moved to  the U.S. 724 F.3d at 742. The Court specifically rejected the father's  contention that the mother wrongfully retained the child in the U.S. after the  father obtained the Irish court order naming him guardian over the child.  The Court noted that the "Hague Convention is an anti-abduction treaty; it is not a treaty on the recognition and enforcement of [foreign] decisions on custody." Id. Enforcing chasing orders is beyond  the Hague Convention's concept of wrongful retention. Id. at 740. Applying those principles here, the district court held that the Dublin Court's issuance of its Sept. 11,  2012 orders did not render Ingrid's retention of L.S. wrongful. When Ingrid and L.S. left the U.S. on May 25, 2012, she did  not violate David's custody rights, as none existed. When David subsequently  applied for and received guardianship over L.S., this did not mean that Ingrid's  retention breached David's rights of custody. Such chasing orders do not create  a wrongful retention under Art. 3 of the Convention. This is because the Court  must look to the custody rights existing at the time of removal.  White, 718  F.3d at 307. Since David did not have any custody rights when Ingrid left  Ireland, her retention of L.S. in the U.S. is not wrongful.

However, the court found that Respondent established the  "settled" defense, and denied the petition. If more than a year has elapsed from the  date of the wrongful removal or retention, the Court must order the return of  the child "unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment." Hague Convention, Art. 12.  David did not file the Petition until December 27, 2013. He argued that the filing of  the Petition should be equitably tolled based on the fact  that he sought the return of L.S. through the Ireland Department of Justice and  Equality and the U.S. Department of State, but he got hung up on bureaucratic  delays.  Equitable tolling stays the running of Art. 12's one year timeline for the  "settled" defense. Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 723 (11th Cir.2004). It  applies when "circumstances suggest that the abducting parent took steps to  conceal the whereabouts of the child from the parent seeking return and such  concealment delayed the filing of the petition for return. Duarte v. Bardales,  526 F.3d 563, 570 (9th Cir.2008). Only the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits  allow equitable tolling in Hague Convention cases. Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d  41, 55 (2d Cir.2012). The Court refused to expand equitable tolling beyond  active concealment as the Ninth Circuit has refused to do so. Equitable tolling only applies "where two  related conditions are met: (1) the abducting parent concealed the child and (2)  that concealment caused the petitioning parent's filing delay. " Id. Equitable  tolling does not apply if the petitioner knew of the child's location. Id . at  1015.  David knew of L.S.' location in late July 2012 and had regular contact with L.S.  Since Ingrid did not take steps to actively conceal L.S.' location after David  learned of his address in Montana, equitable tolling did not apply.

The Court indicated that to determine whether a child is "settled," the following factors must be  considered:   (1) the child's age; (2) the stability and duration of the child's residence in    the new environment; (3) whether the child attends school or day care    consistently; (4) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; (5) the child's participation in community or extracurricular school    activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school clubs; and (6) the    respondent's employment and financial stability. B. Del C.S.B., 559 F.3d at 1009. In addition, the child's immigration status may  only be relevant "if there is an immediate, concrete threat of deportation."  In addition, this Court may also consider the child's wishes if he has  "attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take  account of its views." Hague Convention, Art. 13. In applying the factors, the  Court concluded that L.S. was settled in  Montana. Additionally, L.S.  obtained the level of maturity where the Court could consider his viewpoints. L.S. told the Court that he wanted to stay in  Montana. L.S. would like to maintain a relationship with David, but he did  not  want to be returned to Ireland. L.S. has expressed a desire to someday visit  David in Ireland.

Larrategui v. Laborde, 2014 WL 128048 (E.D.Cal.) [Argentina] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Petition Denied]

In Larrategui v. Laborde, 2014 WL 128048 (E.D.Cal.) Petitioner Daniel Carlos Chiramberro Larrategui  and Respondent Valeria Eguiguren Laborde ("Respondent") were both born in Argentina. They met and began dating in 1996 and began cohabitating in 1997. S.C. was born in Argentina in December 1999. In or about 2002, Petitioner and Respondent separated when S.C. was two years old. When the parties separated, S.C. resided primarily with Respondent, but Petitioner frequently spent time with S.C. When S.C. was about two to three years old, she was diagnosed with Developmental Dysphasia. In Argentina, through the Hospital Aleman, S.C. was under the care of numerous physicians and mental health professionals, including Dr. Hernan Amartino ("Dr.Amartino"). In Argentina, S.C. was attending Colegio Bilingue Armonia, a school that integrates students with Special Education Needs.  In 2006, Respondent began discussing with Petitioner the possibility of S.C. relocating to the United States in the spring of 2007. In 2007, Respondent moved to the United States from Argentina. She was currently married and had a son of approximately three and a half years old. When Respondent left to the United States, Petitioner cared for S.C. Child custody proceedings occurred in Argentina beginning in 2007. In 2010, an Argentina court granted Petitioner full custody of S.C. Beginning in 2009, S.C. began experiencing emotional outbursts. In November 2012, through an Argentina court order, Respondent was allowed to bring S.C. to the United States from December 13, 2012, until January 29, 2013. S.C. did not return to Argentina by January 29, 2013. S.C. was currently enrolled at Monte Vista Middle School, a public school in San Joaquin County. In the United States, S.C. was evaluated by Dr. Crawford in 2012 and then again in 2013. Dr. Crawford determined that S.C. "runs the risk of psychotic breakdown, and if not supported adequately is in danger of developing a Borderline Personality Disorder." The Kaiser Permanente medical group diagnosed S.C. with Borderline Intellectual Functioning and a mood disorder.  S.C. was currently attending weekly therapy sessions.

Respondent did not dispute that S.C. was a habitual resident of Argentina and was being wrongfully retained in the United States, but she argued that S.C. should not be returned because S.C. was in grave risk of physical and psychological
harm because S.C. had serious medical and mental health needs and the resources in
place in Argentina, including Petitioner's understanding of S.C.'s needs, were
gravely inadequate to provide the necessary care to S.C.

The district court observed that a parent may establish a grave risk to
defeat or delay the return of a child "by showing that it would disrupt an ongoing
course of medical treatment and severely impact the child's health. But the parent
would have to provide clear and convincing evidence both (1) of the child's
serious medical needs and (2) of the home country's inability to provide the
necessary care." Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d at 511.

          Unlike the district court's finding in Cuellar (i.e., that the child
suffered of "ataxia," which was based on testimony and written statements made by
an unidentified physician, a professor, and a registered nurse), here, there was
substantial and credible evidence to show that S.C. had Borderline Intellectual
Functioning and a mood disorder that may develop into a more serious condition,
including a Borderline Personality Disorder. Furthermore, there was evidence that
there was an ongoing course of medical treatment. Accordingly, the Court found by
clear and convincing evidence that S.C. had serious medical needs. It also found that there was was  insufficient evidence that S.C. could not receive the medical care she requires in Argentina. At best, the evidence demonstrated that S.C.'s medical care in the United States may be better than that provided to her in Argentina. Regardless,
the comparison of whether one country's medical opportunities are better than
another's does not constitute a grave risk of harm as contemplated by the drafters
of the Hague Convention nor is it within the purview of 42 U.S.C. s 11603. Accordingly, Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that S.C.'s home country was unable to provide the necessary care and, therefore, no grave risk of harm if S.C. was returned to Argentina.

The Court granted the Petition and imposed narrowly focused undertakings to ensure that S.C. received the necessary medical treatments and ensured that Respondent was allowed access to and visitation with S.C. See Kufner, 480 F.Supp.2d at 516 (adopting similar undertakings to ensure that the children received medical care and the respondent was allowed to visit the children).

Gee v Hendroffe, 2014 WL 60325 (D.Nev.) [South Africa] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [42 U.S.C. § 11603(b)][“Located”]

In Gee v Hendroffe, 2014 WL 60325 (D.Nev.)  William Gee and Hannie Hendroffe  were married in South Africa in 2002. They had  two children together, "J .G." and "S.G.".   In January 2013, the couple was divorced in Clark County, Nevada. . As part of the custody agreement, the parties stipulated to move to South Africa with the children and  that respondent could relocate to Australia by December 2017, or when petitioner relocated from South Africa, whichever occurred first.  On or around July 11, 2013, respondent left South Africa for Las Vegas, taking the children with her. She neither informed petitioner of her intention to take the children, nor obtained his consent prior to her departure. Later that same day, respondent emailed petitioner informing him that she was on her way to the United States, and that she planned on returning with the children around August 9, 2013.    

      According to respondent, on August 27, 2013, she left Las Vegas with the
children and her friend/babysitter, Yasmine Acevado, for southern California. Respondent asserted that she returned to Las Vegas to attend to legal matters on August 30, 2013, but left the children in California with Ms. Acevado for the day.  On August 30, 2013, Gee filed a petition in the district  court pursuant to the Hague Convention, demanding that the children be returned to South Africa. On August 31, 2013, Hendroffe and the children left the United States for Kuala Lumpur, flying out of Los Angeles, California. The petition and motion for warrant were not served until September 2,  2013. The documents were delivered to Ms. Acevado's home in Las   Vegas, and respondent was not aware of either the motions or the hearing    scheduled for September 4, 2013, until she was contacted by petitioner's counsel via e-mail the day of the hearing-several days after she had already left the United States.

        After the petition and motion for warrant were filed, the magistrate set a hearing on the matter for September 4, 2013.  Although the magistrate's order required respondent to be present at the hearing, respondent was never personally served with notice of such. After receiving notification of the hearing from petitioner's counsel, respondent contacted the court via telephone and indicated that she was no longer present in the United States. In an effort not to delay the hearing, the magistrate allowed respondent to appear telephonically.  At that hearing, the magistrate sua sponte raised the issue of whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation, and ultimately continued the hearing to September 6, 2013. The magistrate set an evidentiary hearing concerning jurisdiction for October 8, 2013, and ordered all parties, including the children, present and in person at the hearing.  On September 23, 2013, the magistrate determined that the court had subject matter jurisdiction and that a hearing on jurisdiction was no longer necessary. Accordingly, the magistrate ordered that the October 8, 2013, evidentiary hearing would instead concern the petition for judicial review and motion for warrant.  The magistrate further ordered that petitioner, respondent, and their two children must be present, in person, at the aforementioned hearing, and that there would be no exceptions to the personal appearance requirement.  

        On October 8, 2013, the magistrate held the evidentiary hearing as scheduled. Present at the hearing were petitioner, petitioner's counsel, and respondent's counsel.  Respondent and the children, in violation of the magistrate's order, did not attend the hearing.  At the hearing, respondent's counsel raised the issue of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over respondent.  Petitioner's counsel called the petitioner to testify under oath.Petitioner was asked questions by his counsel, then respondent's counsel cross-examined him and, finally, the magistrate asked petitioner questions of her own.  No other witnesses were presented.
  
 On October 29, 2013, the magistrate issued a report recommending the petition
be granted, a warrant in lieu of habeas corpus be issued, and respondent's motion
to dismiss be denied. Respondent filed objections to the report and recommendation, specifically objecting to the magistrate's findings that the court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction. 

The District Court observed that it "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate."28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made."28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

       The district court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter.   Under ICARA any person seeking the return of a child in the United States may commence a civil action under the convention by "filing a petition in ... any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed." 42 U.S.C. § 11603(b).  Petitioner was  required to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction by proving the children were located in this district at the time he filed the petition. He failed to do so.

       The parties' disagreement regarding subject matter jurisdiction centered around
the word "located" as it is used within the context of an ICARA petition. Relying on a footnote in Holder, the petitioner argued that the place where the children are discovered, apparently whether or not they are physically there when the petition is filed, is the determinative location. Because the children were "discovered" in Las Vegas, petitioner asserted that this court had jurisdiction.  In finding that the court did have subject matter jurisdiction, the magistrate concluded that respondent's contention that the children were in California with Ms. Acevado when the petition was filed was irrelevant because petitioner did not have knowledge of that trip, and his reasonable belief that the children were in Las Vegas was enough to establish jurisdiction. The district court held that neither the plain language of the statute nor the decisions relied on by petitioner supported that conclusion.

       In Holder, the court touched on the meaning of the word "located" in passing. In doing so, the court stated that:  [Petitioner] probably could not have brought his Hague Convention petition in  California in the first instance because California probably does not have  jurisdiction to hear it... At least one of our sister circuits has held that  "located" has a particular meaning in the context of ICARA, distinct from "a  traditional residency test."  Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 937 (11th Cir.1998).  The Lops definition, "the place where the abducted children are discovered," is  more equivalent to the concept of physical presence.  140 F.3d at 937. This kind  of common-sense definition makes sense in the context of the ICARA and the Hague  Convention, concerned as they are with the Hague Convention's consistent  application across borders.     Holder, 305 F.3d 854, n. 5 (9th Cir.2002). 

The district court found that the footnote in Holder simply comports with a plain reading of the statute. It was clear that the word "located," as used within the context of ICARA, has a more particular and exacting meaning than a "traditional residency test," which is generally more broad. While under a "traditional residency test" analysis the children in this case may have been "located" in Nevada, that is not the proper analysis here. Under ICARA, jurisdiction exists only where the children are physically present at the time of filing. In this case it was undisputed that respondent took the children to California on or around August 27, 2013. What was disputed, however, is the date that the children returned to Las Vegas, if at all. Petitioner has produced evidence demonstrating only that respondent was in this district on August 30, 2013. Respondent produced evidence, including cell phone pictures and an affidavit from Ms. Acevado, tending to show that the children were in California on August 30, 2013-the day the petition was filed in Nevada. While the magistrate and petitioner expressed doubt regarding the credibility of such evidence, no such credibility determination was necessary. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction. It is not enough to show generally that the children were in Nevada at some point in the weeks or days prior to the filing of the petition. Rather, jurisdiction under ICARA requires a more particular showing that the child is in the district at the moment the petition is filed. Here, petitioner had not produced any evidence that the children, as opposed to only respondent, were physically present in this district at the time the petition was filed. Accordingly, petitioner did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the children were located in this district on the date he filed the petition. Accordingly, the court did  not have jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the case.