Case Update (14 July 2025): Tenorio v. Vieira; despite financial coercion, child’s habitual residence shifted to Portugal
The parties are a married couple with one child-in-common, born in February 2020 in New York. In April 2021, the parties began discussing a move to Portugal. Their testimony revealed vastly different accounts of what they intended with the move to Porto. The Respondent Mother believed that their move to Portugal was intended to be a temporary move, to see if they would like living in Porto. She testified that she never offered to move there permanently, and she believed Petitioner Father agreed to a “trial relocation.” The Petitioner Father, however, intended for the move to be permanent, and took various steps to make it permanent, many with the cooperation of Respondent. The court found that the parties cooperated in legally immigrating to Portugal, with Petitioner completing a Golden Visa application in his name alone in late 2021, but with Respondent signing a Power of Attorney for Petitioner to “represent her before the Immigration and Border Services… including powers to request or renew her Residence Permit …” Also in late 2021, the parties purchased an apartment in Porto, with both parties’ names on the real estate registry. Further, in July 2023, the Respondent alone traveled to Portugal to select a house. The realtor testified that she was excited to move to Portugal. She selected the home, and both are listed as owners on the city registry. While she claimed it was only intended to be an investment property, she admitted on cross-examination that she intended to renovate the house and live there. The architecture firm that was hired to renovate the property was hired by both parties. They also took steps to enroll their child-in-common in school in Portugal. Respondent completed applications for that child. Both parties signed the school acceptance form. In June 2024, he placed his New York house on the market, and it sold in August. The family did keep a house in New York, where the Respondent’s adult daughter was living. At this house, they left two vehicles and personal property. Petitioner maintains U.S. bank accounts and U.S. health insurance. The Petitioner, however, took steps to wind down his business in New York. On August 10, 2024, he purchased one-way airline tickets for the family’s move to Portugal. Respondent testified that she left New York because she was fearful - that Petitioner had told her, multiple times, that if she chose to stay in New York, she would be on the streets. She was upset by their living situation in Porto, but she was adjusting. In October 2024, the Petitioner’s Permanent Residency was approved. They then submitted their applications for Respondent and their child on November 5, 2024. In November 2024, Petitioner opened a construction business in Portugal, and accepted a job as manager. The families in the business became great friends, and their children played together regularly. The parties’ child also had maternal relatives, including cousins, in Portugal with whom he spent significant time. The child attended school, although the parents disagree as to whether he was doing well or not adapting. He had doctors. Finally, in December 2024, the Petitioner went to NY to close out his business, and get estimates for moving their personal property. The parties made a plan to meet in Ecuador to visit family over the New Year’s holiday, but Respondent ultimately traveled to NY and made her intentions clear that she would remain there with the child.
The Petitioner Father requested the child’s return to Portugal using the Hague Abduction Convention. The key issue in this case is the child’s habitual residence. While the court listed a litany of factors that it would consider in the Monasky totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, it did note that “[a] factor that has particular import in this case is parental coercion … [s]uch coercion could preclude a finding that a child’s new country was his habitual residence.” In this particular case, the court did account for the Respondent’s unhappiness with the move, and the “economic threats made by” the Petitioner, but concluded that ultimately, all the facts “demonstrate that Portugal was” the child’s habitual residence in December 2024 when the Respondent Mother returned to New York. The ties that the Petitioner kept in New York pale in comparison to the ties the family made in Portugal. Even though the child had only been in Portugal for four months, he developed connections there that were “far more substantial and significant than those associated with a temporary change or vacation.” The court, after comparing this family’s situation to several past cases, stated, “[t]his trifecta of cases, all of which are post-Monasky, suggests that here, where parental intentions and actions-long-term planning for a move, an almost complete relocation-combined with some evidence of acclimation-including school enrollment, social interactions, and family ties-can anchor the child’s habitual residence in a new country. And while one parent may have regrets about such arrangements and legitimate and reasonable reasons to want to return, such change of heart is not sufficient to shift the child’s habitual residence back to the United States. That is precisely the case here.” The court further stated, “even when there is significant coercion that impedes or influences a parent’s choice of residence for their child, a court cannot ignore other evidence regarding the child’s habitual residence.” No single fact is dispositive.
Given the financial control that Petitioner has over Respondent in this case, the court returned the child to Portugal with financial undertakings imposed on the Petitioner to support the Respondent.
