Case Update (8 July 2026): White v. White; Hague Abduction Convention and U.S. military family
The parties are the parents of a minor child, age 14. The family is a military family. The Respondent Father had been active duty military, but retired in 2024 from the U.S. Army and now works as a contractor and private investigator and is resident in Kentucky. The Petitioner Mother is a civilian employee with the U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany. The family had moved around during the child’s minority, including to Georgia (after the child was born in Texas), Belgium, Portugal, and North Carolina. The parties are parents to an older child enrolled at the University of Louisville, having just completed her first year.
In January 2021, the Petitioner and two children moved to Stuttgart for her civilian assignment. Respondent was still active-duty military at the time and stationed in Kentucky, “but would frequently travel to Europe for short assignments.” “Respondent ultimately believed he would later retire and join the family in Germany.” He signed paperwork, like command sponsorship and passport documents. Petitioner’s assignment was subject to a 5-year term, but she requested, and was granted, an extension through January 2027. Her term might be further extended upon her wishes and the mission objectives. Respondent reported that the parties “truly” separated in July 2022, and have no written agreement. The minor child subject here resided in Germany from January 2021 through May 2025. Starting in October 2022, and for 9 months, Respondent was serving in Poland, but lived in housing that was not conducive to have the children with him. During the children’s time in Germany, Respondent visited with them each summer for varying lengths of time, including in the USA. The subject child was schooled at a military installation, instead of an international school, participated in activities, and had established medical care in Germany. The children were in Kentucky for summer 2024, and both expressed a desire to live in the USA. In summer 2025, the elder child started university in Kentucky, and the subject child again objected to returning to Germany. Respondent did not return the child to Germany at the end of summer 2025. The child has been in Kentucky since August 17, 2025.
The subject child was appointed a Guardian Ad Litem and interviewed in chambers. He relayed that he does not want to return to Germany, doesn’t speak the language, most of his friends have moved away, that his mother extended her assignment despite his desire to not remain there, and that he doesn’t get along with the children on base.
With regard to a military child’s habitual residence, the court, in applying Monasky, looks at the very specific and unique circumstances of this family. It noted that the subject child had lived appreciable time in both the US and Europe, and had been in Germany since January 2021, with an expected 5 years for his Mother’s contract, with the Father signing the requisite paperwork for his residency. The child is a U.S. citizen, born in the U.S. The child was a participant in activities, both on the military base and, with permission, on some local German sport teams. The child had German doctors, covered by Tricare. The child’s belongings are in Germany, and the child says he does not speak German, although his Mother disputes that. The child also wants to live in the U.S. The child’s primary life on a satellite installation of the U.S. within Germany is unique and lends itself to less meaningful connections within Germany - transient friendships, general lack of assimilation to German culture. He has his family in Kentucky - both parents’ extended relatives, his sister, his father. With the Mother’s unilateral extension of her contract in Germany, the parents no longer share a joint intent for the child to remain in Germany. Therefore, the court concluded the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Germany was the child’s habitual residence at the time of his retention. See Roberts v. Roberts for another military family where these unique military family circumstances factored into a habitual residence decision.
In this case, for whether the child was mature and objects to his return to Germany, the court appointed a GAL. The GAL did not conclude the child was mature, nor did it find that the child’s reasons for preferring to live in the USA were mature and objective. The court, despite respecting the GAL’s “recommendations”, concluded otherwise, citing that the GAL did not consider the 6th Circuit’s opinion in Boa-Bonsu. Finding the child mature after his in camera interview, the court noted that the child expressed his objections over a significant period of time, and reflected a lack of sense of belonging in Germany.
The Petitioner’s request to return the child to Germany has been denied.
