Case Update (3 Oct 2023): Chvanov v. Chvanova; an agreement to relocate is not dispositive on issue of habitual residence

The parties are parents to a child, born in Russia on January 1, 2018. The parties separated in January 2022, and about 2 months later, the Respondent Mother traveled, with the child, to Turkey and then Mexico. She remained in Mexico from March 16, 2022 to May 20, 2022, at which time she entered the United States with the child, and requested political asylum. The Father requested the child’s return, but not to Russia, since the United States and Russia are not treaty partners (the U.S. never having accepted Russia’s accession). The Father requested the child’s return from the USA to Mexico. To bolster this argument, he testified that the family had intended to relocate to Mexico, and argued that he planned to come and live in Mexico with his family and that he is now a lawful permanent resident of Mexico. The respondent argued, however, that she never told the petitioner about the trip to Mexico, had left Russia without the petitioner’s knowledge, planned the trip to Mexico as a vacation, and never took steps to make Mexico home (never opened bank accounts, never tried to find employment, and did not obtain a residency card).

The court concluded that Russia was the child’s habitual residence, and therefore, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. First, an agreement to relocate to Mexico (assuming one even existed) is not dispositive on habitual residence. Second, the petitioner never adequately demonstrated that the parties intended to move to Mexico.