Case Update (17 July 2026): Kaslasi v. Abergil; understanding the date a retention is wrongful and its impact on habitual residence
The parties are Israeli parents to a 5-year-old son. They decided to travel to Nevada on December 6, 2024. The family arrived on tourist visas allowing a maximum 6-month stay. They had return tickets for February 20, 2025. Related to their transition to Nevada, however, their Israeli apartment lease expired, they did not lease another apartment, they sold or gave away some of their furnishings, their cars, and pet dog, they withdrew the child from school where he had a going-away party, they signed a five month lease on a Nevada house, paid in advance, they furnished the house, purchased and insured cars in Nevada, got driver permit cards and took drivers tests, and enrolled the child in school where they received a tuition grant. Further evidence suggested the parties had previously discussed a permanent relocation to the USA, but deliberately waited until the Petitioner had finished his studies as an electrician in Israel, and that upon arrival, the Respondent had incorporated a business to become a hairdresser.
The parties had a disagreement on January 31, 2025 when the Mother apparently hid the child’s passport. This resulted in an alleged domestic violence incident, the Father’s arrest, and a protective order against the Father. On February 11 or 12, 2025, Father left the US and returned to Israel, without telling Mother, filed a child abduction complaint with Israeli police, and retained counsel who ultimately filed a petition to return the child in the U.S. District Court on July 8, 2025. After three days of trial, the Magistrate Judge recommended the child be returned. The Mother lodged objections. The District Court renews the evidence de novo.
A key issue on review was the date of the child’s alleged wrongful retention. The Magistrate found February 12, 2025, without any explanation (the date the Father flew back to Israel). The District Court followed the Third Circuit’s rule: “the date beyond which the noncustodial parent no longer consents to the child’s continued habitation with the custodial parent and instead seeks to reassert custody rights, as clearly and unequivocally communicated through words, actions, or some combination thereof.” (see Blackledge). In deciding what this meant for this family, the court noted that the family had return flights on February 20, 2025, the Father argued the date the child’s passports were hidden (December 8, 2024) was the date of retention, the date of the parties’ disagreement (January 31, 2025), the date the Father departed without Mother’s knowledge (February 11, 2025), the date the Father filed his abduction claim in Israel (March 4, 2025), the date he filed this court case (July 8, 2025), and the date he served the Respondent Mother (July 25, 2025). The court concluded July 25, 2025 was the date of retention, being the date that the Mother first had clear and unequivocal communication from Father that he withdrew his prior consent and asserted his custody rights.
On July 25, 2025, the District Court found that the child’s habitual residence “was the United States.” The parties’ behavior prior to their trip to the USA “indicates a clear intention from both parties to permanent relocate.” The court noted the strongest argument for Israel as the habitual residence was the strong family network in Israel. The court also noted that the Magistrate had placed disproportionate weight on the family’s visitor visa status, which is only one factor, and is not dispositive. Focusing on a parent’s desire to overstay a visitor visa places the habitual residence analysis on the parent, not the child. Even if there were an “immediate, concrete threat of removal”, this does not preclude a finding that a child is habitually resident in a country. Despite the current administration’s focus on immigration, there is no automatic assumption that every person in the U.S. illegally faces an immediate, concrete threat of removal.
