Case Update (12 June 2026): Adebayo v. Adebayo; Factual Analysis of a Child’s Habitual Residence
The parties are parents to three children, all born in New Jersey, and who are dual U.S.-Nigerian citizens. The Respondent Mother is also a dual citizen, and the Father is a Nigerian citizen. In 2019, the Father was convicted of several federal offenses in the U.S., served a prison sentence, and was then deported to Nigeria. In 2021, the family all agreed for the Mother and children to relocate to Nigeria, and the family resided in a 3-BR apartment in Lagos. In 2024, the parents began discussing a further relocation - this time to Portugal, and ultimately agreed, relocating in 2025. Petitioner Father moved first, and the children and Mother reunited with him in early October 2025. The parties had difficulty enrolling all three children in the same school, so the parents discussed schooling the children in the USA, where Mother had a host in Texas who would allow them to stay with them. On January 25, 2026, the children and Mother flew to Texas, started school in February, and, in March, the Respondent Mother advised the Father that they would not be returning to Portugal. While the children had been in Portugal - early October 2025 to late January 2026 - they did not attend school, extracurricular activities, or church. They did not have identifiable friends, play with local children, or attempt to learn Portuguese. They would periodically run errands with their Mother. They did not have a physician in Portugal. The Father sought the children’s return to Portugal using the Hague Abduction Convention. At trial, the court interviewed the two elder children in camera, who objected to returning to Portugal.
The district court ultimately concluded that the Father could not demonstrate that Portugal was the children’s habitual residence. The children did not form any daily routine, scarcely integrated with Portuguese society, and had an isolated existence, where the parents began planning for a move to the USA within two months for the children to avail themselves of the free public schooling. The court credited the Father’s abundant evidence that it was his intention for Portugal to become their habitual residence - the apartment, immigration steps, his registered business, obtaining medical insurance, plans for schooling, and a desire for his family to live under one roof.
Despite concluding the Father failed to make out his prima facie case, the court nonetheless analyzed the Mother’s three arguments against returning the children. The court concluded that the Father did not consent to the children’s permanent relocation, with evidence showing that he continued to seek out schools in Portugal, maintained their health insurance, and kept many of their belongings in Portugal. This did not conflict with the fact that he bought them one-way plane tickets, and had hopes of one day residing in the USA again himself (which seemed unlikely any time soon given his prior criminal conviction and immigration status). The court did not find a grave risk of harm based on the Father’s isolated incidents of physical discipline of the children. Finally, while the elder children were mature, articulate, and self-aware and objected to returning to Portugal, “the Court perceived their testimony to bear certain indicia of influence. Their responses precisely echoed much of [Respondent’s] testimony and many of the statements in her pleadings, and their manner of speaking bore certain signs of rehearsal.”
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the Father’s request to return the children on the basis that he did not demonstrate Portugal was the children’s habitual residence. On July 9, 2026, the Judge adopted the recommendations.
