Case Update (23 Jan 2026): Alzu v. Huff; Petitioner failed to prove habitual residence of child was Argentina when child was born in and lived his entire almost 2-year life in Argentina
The Petitioner here filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. At the district court level, he failed to persuade the court that Argentina was the child’s habitual residence, therefore resulting in a denial of his request to return the child to Argentina under the Hague Abduction Convention.
As a quick reminder of the salient facts, as outlined by the 8th Circuit, the couple met in December 2018 at a Rainbow Gathering in Colombia. In July 2019, the two, now a couple, were living in Colombia on a coffee ranch. Their visas expired and could not be renewed. They considered multiple potential new places of residence, but ultimately chose Argentina, where Petitioner’s family resided. The couple discussed, and agreed that they wanted to consider living a nomadic lifestyle, organizing and attending Rainbow Gatherings. While Respondent was pregnant, and before the child was born, the couple planned to travel to Chile for one such gathering. The Petitioner, at trial, argued that the couple intended to make Argentina their “home base” where their travels would begin and end. The Respondent stated that there had been no such discussion. The district court found no evidentiary support for the Petitioner’s assertion. The child was born on March 4, 2020, and the Mother planned on taking the child to the USA, but one week later, COVID restricted travel. The couple remained in Argentina. In February 2021, the couple ended their relationship, agreed to 50/50 time sharing, and the Mother terminated her lease, and secured an order of protection against the Father. In November 2021, when travel restrictions ended, the Mother stayed in Argentina, because the Father refused to let her travel with the child to the USA. The Argentinian Family Court granted the Mother permission to travel internationally for 40 days over the Christmas holiday. The Mother assured the Father she would return, but she didn’t. The Father was unable to legally enter the USA.
The district court concluded that this family had unusual circumstances and a unique scenario with their nomadic lifestyle. The court also noted the role of the world wide travel restrictions. Applying the Monasky standard, where no one factor determines where a child is habitually resident, the court concluded that the evidence presented by the Father did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that Argentina was the child’s habitual residence. The 8th Circuit affirmed this finding, applying its clear error standard. It is not incumbent upon the court to reach a finding on where the child is habitually resident - only to determine whether the Petitioner met his burden of proof. Yes, this ultimately has an odd outcome here - the child only ever lived in Argentina before the Mother retained the child in the USA, so if Argentina is not the child’s habitual residence, then where is? However, the opinion ultimately seems to say that maybe Argentina is the habitual residence, but the court has not received sufficient evidence from the party obligated to present said evidence to reach that conclusion. Another oddity is that there appears to be an Argentinian custody order, entered by its courts when the child was living in Argentina, and presumably made under factual circumstances that would be in substantial conformity with how a U.S. state court would assume custody jurisdiction.
