Case Update (14 March 2026): Kumar v. Tusieseina; child’s habitual residence was Sweden, and child is ordered returned
The parties are parents to one child, born on September 12, 2022 in Utah, and who is a dual citizen of Sweden and the USA. Two days before the child was born, the parties applied for the child’s Mother to receive a Swedish residence permit. The residence permit was approved on February 5, 2023, the date she traveled with the child from Utah (where she was residing with her parents) to Sweden. In 2023, the Mother applied for and began receiving Swedish social benefits for their child. On March 23, 2023, the Mother and child returned to the USA, staying in Utah. In May 2023, the Swedish Tax Authority requested additional information from the Mother regarding her residence permit application. In response, with the help of the Father, she replied that her plan was to live in Sweden with the Father and child, that they applied for the child’s registration, and she presently had only a tourist visa. She noted a planned move date of July 26, 2023. She traveled to the Swedish Embassy in D.C. in June 2023 for her residence permit. It was approved soon thereafter. She traveled on July 27, 2023, with the child to Sweden and stayed with the Father in his Stockholm apartment. Mother and Child took a trip to the USA from October 27, 2023 to January 10, 2024, and returned to Sweden. The couple then signed a prenuptial agreement, and married on June 29, 2024 in Stockholm. From June 30, 2024 to September 2, 2024, the Mother and Child again traveled to the USA, although the Father accompanied them. Mother applied for work in Sweden in November 2024, and listed her Stockholm residence on her California income tax return that year. After a fight in early January 2025, Mother and Child went to the USA (she had a pre-planned trip for 3 weeks). She didn’t return. In April 2025, the Father filed for divorce in Sweden. He then sought the child’s return to Sweden using the Hague Abduction Convention.
The only issue pursued at trial was whether Sweden was the child’s habitual residence. At trial, the Mother maintained that her move to Sweden was intended to be temporary, potentially for 1-2 years while seeking employment and housing in Dubai. She admitted that Sweden is the only place where all three family members can legally reside together for longer than 90 days. In the last half of 2023, Mother testified that she received a job offer in LA, but declined it to return to Sweden because the Father was having “a manic episode that required heavy medication and her care.” The couple had text messages from November 2022-November 2024 discussing Dubai as a potential residence. They searched for work during this timeframe in Dubai. The couple considered applying for a green card for the Father in the USA in August 2024, but the only steps were the Mother’s father contacting an immigration lawyer, with no further action.
In its opinion, the court compared the child’s connections to both Utah and Sweden. The court took testimony from the parties about their troubled relationship and fights. The court concluded that the parties had an agreement to reside in Sweden with their child, and the Mother only changed her mind during the January 2025 fight, which prompted her to go to Utah, and not return as scheduled after 3 weeks. Their prior discussions about possibly moving to Dubai or even to the USA were not concrete. The family had resided in Sweden for a significant period, established legal residence, and enrolled their child in school in Sweden. The child is at the cusp of being able to acclimate, being just over age 2. The court found that the child was acclimating to Sweden, and despite the significant ties and trips to the USA, Sweden was the place the child spent more time, and this time corresponded to her older and more developed years where she was forming routines and connections.
Finally, the court ordered the Mother and her parents, with whom she lived after bringing the child to the USA and who were co-Defendants in the Hague Abduction case, to be jointly liable for the legal fees under the U.S. implementing legislation. The court divided the fees/costs with the Mother being liable for 90% and her parents being jointly and severally liable for 10%.
