Case Update (25 June 2024): Alzu v. Huff; Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate Argentina was the child’s habitual residence
This presents an interesting case from the U.S. District Court for the WD of Missouri. The parties can only be said to have a nomadic lifestyle. They both met at a “Rainbow Gathering” and apparently intended to continue moving throughout South America by van, after their child’s birth, to various Rainbow Gatherings. The parties decided, primarily based on their respective immigration situations, to give birth to their child in Argentina, which is Petitioner’s home country (although he had not lived there since 2007, and has not, apparently, lived there even after having filed his Petition to seek the child’s return from the USA). The child was born right before COVID-19 required various travel restrictions to be put in place. Because of the travel restrictions, the parties were essentially stuck in Argentina (whether they wanted to or not). Ultimately, their relationship dissolved, and the parties entered into a mediated agreement related to the child, approved by an Argentine court. The order permitted the Respondent to take the child to the USA for a trip, but to return to Argentina. She never returned, provoking this court case.
The Petitioner argued that Argentina was the child’s habitual residence. An Argentine court had issued an order related to the child. It was the only place the very young child (not even age 2) had lived. Further, he testified that he had wanted the child to use Argentina as a home base, so that even as the family traveled to Rainbow Gatherings, Argentina would be where they return. Respondent testified that this court need not find any habitual residence, and, that Argentina was definitely not the habitual residence. She argued that it was never their intention to remain in Argentina, and they were all but stuck because of COVID-19 (she further argued that she was coerced to remain there because of Petitioner’s violent behavior, but the court did not reach that conclusion).
In the end, the court concluded that Argentina was not the child’s habitual residence. This has the effect of the child having no habitual residence, but that was not the precise conclusion of the court. Apparently, the court need not state affirmatively where the child is habitually resident, so much as conclude that the Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect.
