The parents married in the Dominican Republic in 2011 and have two children, C.P.M. (born 2012) and A.P.M. (born 2015), who are dual Spanish and Dominican citizens. In 2019, the Mother sent both children to live with the Father in Spain, and she moved to the United States the following year. A 2024 Spanish custody judgment gave the parents joint parental authority but awarded the Father full physical custody, with the Mother having summers and some winter holidays. The judgment also said the parents would consider letting the children attend school in the United States once C.P.M. turned 15 and both children had U.S. residency. The children came to Pennsylvania in June 2025 on the ESTA visa waiver program with return tickets for September. The parents’ accounts of what was agreed differed, and the court found neither parent fully credible, but it concluded that the Father at least agreed to the children staying for the 2025-2026 school year. In April 2026, the Father asked over WhatsApp for the children’s June return date so he could buy tickets, and the Mother replied that they would not return until they obtained permanent residency. The court treated that exchange as the Father’s clear revocation of consent and the date of the wrongful retention. The Father filed his petition in August 2026, the court held a two-day bench trial in October, and it ordered the children’s return at the close of trial on October 14, 2026. This memorandum followed on October 27.
In determining the children’s habitual residence, the court looked at where the children had acclimatized with a degree of settled purpose from their own perspective, while also considering the parents’ shared intentions. The children had spent about ten months in Pennsylvania before the retention, and they enjoyed school, made friends, and played soccer. However, both children understood they had come for one school year, they had similar friendships and activities in Spain, and they had no lawful immigration status in the United States, with green card applications still pending. The court found that this uncertain immigration status weighed against acclimatization. The Spanish judgment and the April 2026 messages also showed no shared intent to abandon Spain. The court held that Spain was the children’s habitual residence, that the Spanish judgment gave the Father the right to determine their residence, and that his frequent video calls with the children showed he was exercising those rights.
The Mother narrowed her defenses at trial to consent or acquiescence and the children’s objections. The April 2026 messages showed the Father never intended for the children to stay beyond the school year, and nothing modified the Spanish judgment, so both arguments (consent and acquiescence) failed. On the children’s objections, the court interviewed both children in camera and found them mature, credible, and not coached. Each expressed a clear preference to remain in the United States, citing school, friends, and activities, but neither articulated a particularized objection to returning to Spain. Because the children’s wishes were the only basis for refusing return, the court applied a stricter standard and found a general preference insufficient. It added that applying the exception would reward the Mother for breaching the Father’s custody rights and would encourage parents to keep children away long enough for them to prefer staying. The court ordered the children returned to Spain.
