Monasky v. Taglieri

Michelle Monasky and Domenico Taglieri, both U.S. citizens, met, married, and had a daughter (A.M.T.) in Italy. When the marriage soured, Monasky took the two-month-old infant to Ohio, USA. Taglieri petitioned under the Hague Convention for the child’s return to Italy. The district court found Italy to be the child’s habitual residence and ordered return; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that a “shared parental intent” to settle was necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed whether an actual agreement between parents is required to establish a child’s habitual residence, ultimately clarifying that no such rigid prerequisite exists and that all facts must be considered.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an “actual agreement” between parents is not a categorical prerequisite for establishing a child’s habitual residence. Instead, the determination depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to each case. The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this standard.

Whether a child’s “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention requires proof of an actual agreement between the parents to settle in a particular place, or whether it is a fact-intensive determination based on the totality of the circumstances.

The decision resolved a split among U.S. circuit courts, providing uniform guidance that a child’s habitual residence is a flexible, fact-driven question. It clarified that even infants can acquire a habitual residence, and emphasized that courts must examine all relevant circumstances rather than rely on rigid tests, thereby strengthening the framework for international child abduction litigation under the Hague Convention.