Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    1/41

    United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

    No. 12- 2256

    LI SANDRO J ONATHAN DAR N,

    Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

    v.

    LUA CECI LI A OLI VERO- HUFFMAN,

    Respondent , Appel l ee.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

    [ Hon. Cami l l e L. Vl ez- Ri v, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

    Bef or e

    Howard, Ri ppl e, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

    Rubn T. Ni gagl i oni , wi t h whom Ni gagl i oni Law Of f i ces P. S. C.was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

    Char l es S. Hey- Maest r e, wi t h whom Mar i car men Car r i l l o-J ust i ni ano and Servi ci os Legal es de Puer t o, I nc. wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

    Mar ch 19, 2014

    * Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    2/41

    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s i s an appeal f r om t he

    deni al of a pet i t i on f or t he r et ur n of a chi l d t o Ar gent i na under

    t he Hague Convent i on on t he Ci vi l Aspect s of I nt er nat i onal Chi l d

    Abduct i on, Oct . 25, 1980, T. I . A. S. No. 11, 670, 1343 U. N. T. S. 89,

    r epr i nt ed i n 51 Fed. Reg. 10494- 01 ( Mar . 26, 1986) ( "Convent i on" ) ,

    and i t s i mpl ement i ng stat ut e, t he I nt er nat i onal Chi l d Abduct i on

    Remedi es Act ( " I CARA") , 42 U. S. C. 11601- 11611 ( 2000) . Li sandr o

    J onathan Dar n ( "Dar n") i ni t i at ed t hese proceedi ngs agai nst Lua

    Ceci l i a Ol i ver o- Huf f man ( "Ol i ver o") , seeki ng t he r et ur n of t hei r

    son ( "LAD" ) t o Ar gent i na f r om t he Uni t ed St at es. The di st r i ct

    cour t deni ed t he pet i t i on, and t hi s appeal f ol l owed. We r ever se

    and r emand.

    I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    Dar n i s a ci t i zen of Ar gent i na. Ol i ver o i s a Uni t ed

    St at es ci t i zen f r om Puer t o Ri co. The par t i es f i r st met at some

    poi nt bet ween 2004 and 2005 at a f r i end' s gat her i ng i n Ar gent i na.

    Ol i ver o had t r avel ed t o Ar gent i na i n 2004 t o vi si t a f r i end, and

    deci ded t o st ay f or a f ul l year t o st udy dance t her apy. She

    ul t i mat el y enr ol l ed i n a t hr ee year pr ogr am. I n 2005, Ol i ver o

    r et ur ned to t he Uni t ed St at es, wher e she wor ked f or si x mont hs i n

    or der t o af f or d her dance t herapy st udi es. She t hen went back t o

    Ar gent i na. I n 2006, Ol i ver o and her si st er bought an apar t ment i n

    Buenos Ai r es, Ar gent i na.

    -2-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    3/41

    Al t hough t he par t i es had met ear l i er , i t was not unt i l

    2007 t hat t hey ent er ed i nt o a r omant i c r el at i onshi p. Qui ckl y

    t her eaf t er , Ol i ver o became pr egnant , and by t hen the par t i es wer e

    l i vi ng t oget her i n Ol i ver o' s apar t ment . Dur i ng t he pr egnancy,

    Dar n and Ol i ver o t r avel ed t oget her t o t he Uni t ed St at es, r et ur ni ng

    t o Ar gent i na pr i or t o t he ar r i val of t hei r son. LAD was bor n i n

    Buenos Ai r es on Apr i l 20, 2008, and i s a ci t i zen of bot h t he Uni t ed

    St at es and Ar gent i na. Fol l owi ng t he bi r t h of t hei r son, t he

    part i es moved i nt o a Buenos Ai r es apart ment Dar n had i nher i t ed

    f r om hi s f at her .

    On December 11, 2008, Dar n and Ol i vero t ook LAD t o t he

    Uni t ed St at es f or appr oxi matel y two mont hs, r et ur ni ng t o Ar gent i na

    on Febr uar y 9, 2009. Al l t hr ee t r avel ed agai n t o t he Uni t ed St at es

    on March 24, 2009, where t hey r emai ned unt i l August 7, 2009. As

    bef or e, t hey r et ur ned t o Ar gent i na. On J anuar y 19, 2010, Ol i ver o

    and LAD t r avel ed t o t he Uni t ed St at es - - wi t hout Dar n - - under a

    power of at t or ney ( "POA") si gned by t he par t i es i n Ar gent i na,

    pur suant t o whi ch LAD was aut hor i zed t o t r avel t o any count r y i n

    t he wor l d accompani ed by ei t her par ent . Whi l e i n t he Uni t ed

    St at es, Ol i ver o i nf or med Dar n she and LAD wer e not r etur ni ng t o

    Ar gent i na i n Mar ch as t he par t i es had pr evi ousl y agr eed, t hat she

    di d not want t o ret ur n, and t hat she di d not know when t hey woul d

    r et ur n. Despi t e her expr essed r eservat i ons, mot her and son

    -3-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    4/41

    ul t i mat el y went back t o Ar gent i na i n Apr i l 2010, j ust bef or e LAD' s

    second bi r t hday.

    The coupl e separat ed upon Ol i ver o' s r et urn, but cont i nued

    t o l i ve i n t he same Buenos Ai r es apart ment f or t wo and a hal f

    mont hs. At t hi s poi nt , Dar n r evoked t he POA, seemi ngl y so t hat

    Ol i ver o coul d no l onger t ake t hei r son out of Ar gent i na wi t hout

    hi m. Accordi ng t o hi s t est i mony, he di d so because he di d not

    t r ust her anymore. Ol i ver o and LAD event ual l y moved back i nt o her

    apar t ment i n Buenos Ai r es, and LAD began at t endi ng a near by

    ki nder gar t en. LAD spl i t hi s t i me bet ween hi s mother ' s apar t ment

    and hi s f at her ' s.

    Dar n and Ol i ver o' s separ at i on l ast ed appr oxi mat el y seven

    mont hs. Dur i ng t hi s per i od, and unbeknownst t o Dar n, Ol i ver o

    consul t ed "a coupl e of l awyer s" i n Ar gent i na t o expl or e met hods of

    t aki ng t he chi l d t o t he Uni t ed St at es wi t hout t he chi l d' s f at her ' s

    consent . One l awyer counsel ed her on how t o ask f or cust ody i n

    Ar gent i na, whi l e ot her s advi sed her t hat she "had a bet t er chance

    of r et ur ni ng t o [ t he Uni t ed St at es] " i f she asked f or cust ody i n

    Puert o Ri co. Af t er ponder i ng whether she shoul d seek cust ody of

    LAD i n t he Uni t ed St at es, Ol i ver o deci ded agai nst i t because i t

    "wasn' t somet hi ng [ she] was abl e t o do. "

    On November 9, 2010, Ol i ver o made a qui ck t r i p t o t he

    Uni t ed St at es by hersel f - - pr esumabl y because Dar n had r evoked

    t he POA t hat al l owed ei t her par ent t o t ake LAD out of t he count r y

    -4-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    5/41

    - - l eavi ng LAD i n Dar n' s car e. Soon af t er her r et ur n, Ol i ver o and

    Dar n r econci l ed and, by J anuar y of 2011, wer e l i vi ng t oget her once

    agai n. 1 The r econci l i at i on, however , was shor t - l i ved as i t was

    qui ckl y f ol l owed by t he deci si on t hat ul t i mat el y l ed t o t hei r

    pr ot r act ed l egal quar r el , whi ch cul mi nat ed i n t hi s appeal .

    On J anuar y 31, 2011, t he f ami l y t r avel ed t o t he Uni t ed

    St at es. Thei r f i r st st op was Or l ando, Fl or i da, wher e t hey spent a

    t ot al of f our days. The f ami l y t hen moved on t o Puer t o Ri co. At

    t he out set of t he t r i p, t he pl an was t o spend some t i me i n Puer t o

    Ri co wi t h Ol i ver o' s f ami l y and t hen f l y back to Ar gent i na on Mar ch

    2, 2011. However , dur i ng t hei r st ay i n Puer t o Ri co, t he pl an began

    t o change and t he dat e of r et ur n was pushed back due to Ol i ver o' s

    i nvol vement i n a car acci dent and her appar ent l y new- f ound i nt er est

    i n pur sui ng a busi ness vent ur e wi t h her si st er . Ar ound mi d- Mar ch

    2011, Ol i ver o announced t o Dar n t hat nei t her she nor LAD woul d be

    r et ur ni ng t o Ar gent i na. Dar n r emai ned on t he i sl and as l ong as he

    coul d, but hi s t our i st vi sa was set t o expi r e i n J ul y 2011.

    On J ul y 7, 2011 - - j ust t wo days bef or e Dar n' s depar t ur e

    - - Dar n and Ol i ver o execut ed an af f i davi t r egar di ng t he car e and

    super vi si on of t hei r son dur i ng Dar n' s absence ( t he "Af f i davi t ") .

    Ol i ver o dr af t ed t he Af f i davi t her sel f . The Af f i davi t ' s t er ms

    1 Ol i ver o t est i f i ed i t was not unt i l af t er she r eal i zed t hatshe was unabl e t o heed the Ar gent i ne l awyer s' advi ce t o seekcust ody i n t he Uni t ed St at es t hat she deci ded t o reconci l e wi t hDar n.

    -5-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    6/41

    aut hor i zed her t o t ake any st eps necessar y to pr ovi de f or t he

    educat i on, heal t h car e, and over al l wel l - bei ng of t he chi l d. A

    pr ovi si on aut hor i zi ng t he chi l d t o t r avel wi t h ei t her par ent was

    t her e as wel l . At Dar n' s i nsi st ence, l anguage was i ncl uded

    st at i ng he was l eavi ng t he Uni t ed St at es " agai nst hi s wi l l " and was

    not abandoni ng hi s chi l d. He event ual l y l ef t t he count r y on J ul y

    9, 2011. 2 Ther eaf t er , al t hough separ at ed geogr aphi cal l y, Dar n

    mai nt ai ned cont i nuous and f r equent communi cat i on wi t h hi s son.

    On November 18, 2011, Ol i ver o f i l ed f or l egal cust ody of

    LAD i n Puer t o Ri co st at e cour t . Accor di ng t o t he cust ody pet i t i on,

    Ol i ver o f i l ed so t hat she coul d "send [ LAD] t o vi si t [ Dar n] at

    Chr i st mas, " si nce t hey had not been abl e t o r each an agr eement and

    she f ear ed t he r et ent i on of t he chi l d. 3 On December 19, 2011,

    Dar n f i l ed an appl i cat i on under t he Convent i on wi t h t he Ar gent i na

    Cent r al Aut hor i t y request i ng t he r et ur n of hi s son t o Ar gent i na.

    On Febr uar y 22, 2012, Dar n f i l ed t he i nst ant act i on wi t h t he

    f eder al di st r i ct cour t i n Puer t o Ri co, al l egi ng Ol i ver o' s acti ons

    amount ed to a "wr ongf ul r et ent i on" of hi s son.

    2 The par t i es agr ee Dar n r et ur ned t o Ar gent i na because hi st our i st vi sa was expi r i ng and because he needed t o work.

    3 The r ecor d cont ai ns Ol i ver o' s Puer t o Ri co st at e cour tpet i t i on f or cust ody dat ed November 18, 2011. However , we cannotf i nd anyt hi ng i n t he recor d as t o when or whet her Dar n was servedor ot her wi se put on not i ce of t hi s act i on.

    -6-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    7/41

    II. PROCEEDINGS BELOW

    Accor di ng t o Dar n' s pet i t i on, Ol i ver o wr ongf ul l y r emoved

    or r et ai ned LAD i n t he Uni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of hi s j oi nt

    cust ody r i ght s. Ol i ver o count er ed t hat t her e was no wr ongf ul

    r emoval or r etent i on because Dar n had "expr essl y acqui esced and

    consent ed t o" t he chi l d r esi di ng wi t h her i n t he Uni t ed St at es f or

    an i ndef i ni t e per i od of t i me, and t hat he di d so by execut i ng t he

    Af f i davi t .

    There wer e t wo j oi nt l y st i pul at ed i ssues bef or e t he

    di st r i ct cour t : ( 1) "whet her or not an unl awf ul r et ent i on or

    r emoval of t he chi l d occur r ed i n t hi s case, not wi t hst andi ng

    [ Dar n' s] expr ess consent , gi ven under af f i davi t , t o t he chi l d

    st ayi ng i n Puer t o Ri co under [ Ol i ver o' s] car e and super vi si on, f or

    an i ndef i ni t e per i od of t i me; " and ( 2) "whet her Puer t o Ri co ha[ d]

    become t he chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence and hence t he Puer t o Ri co

    Cour t s ha[ d] j ur i sdi ct i on t o det er mi ne per manent l y t he best

    i nt er est s of t he chi l d and t o rul e on any cont r over si es bet ween t he

    par t i es r egar di ng par ent al cust ody and vi si t at i on r i ght s. "

    Af t er hol di ng a t hr ee- day evi dent i ar y hear i ng wher e bot h

    par t i es had an oppor t uni t y t o t est i f y, 4 t he di str i ct cour t

    concl uded that Dar n had not met hi s bur den of est abl i shi ng a

    wr ongf ul r emoval or r et ent i on. I ndi cat i ng t hat t he al l eged r emoval

    4 Dar n t est i f i ed on hi s own behal f and cal l ed Ol i ver o as awi t ness. Ol i ver o t est i f i ed on her own behal f .

    -7-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    8/41

    or r et ent i on had occur r ed i n J ul y 2011, on t he dat e whi ch Dar n

    l ef t Puer t o Ri co, 5 t he cour t f ound t hat as of t hat t i me "a new

    habi t ual r esi dence i n [ t he Uni t ed St at es] was acqui r ed based on t he

    par ent s' shar ed i nt ent i on i n si gni ng t he af f i davi t . " I n ot her

    wor ds, Dar n had, accor di ng t o t he cour t , "acqui esced/ consent ed" 6

    t o LAD r emai ni ng i n Puert o Ri co. The cour t concl uded t hat because

    LAD "was a habi t ual r esi dent of Puer t o Ri co at t he t i me of t he

    cl ai med r emoval or r et ent i on, " t he ret ent i on or r emoval was not

    wr ongf ul . The cour t hel d t hat t he cour t s of Puer t o Ri co, as

    opposed t o Ar gent i na, had j ur i sdi ct i on t o deter mi ne any and al l

    cust ody di sput es. Consequent l y, i t deni ed Dar n' s pet i t i on and

    di smi ssed hi s cl ai ms, wi t h pr ej udi ce. Dar n t i mel y appeal ed.

    III. THE CONVENTION

    Bef or e t ackl i ng t he mer i t s of t he mat t er at hand, we

    pr ovi de some cont ext . The Convent i on i s a mul t i l ateral agr eement

    5 The cour t saw t he dat e of r et ent i on or r emoval as a cl ear -cut i ssue, i ndi cat i ng i n a f oot not e: "We not e t he dat e on whi cht he r emoval or r et ent i on t ook pl ace i s not an i ssue i n t hi s casei nasmuch as i t i s undi sput ed Pet i t i oner l ef t Puer t o Ri co t o [ si c]Ar gent i na on [ si c] J ul y 2011 and l ef t hi s son under t he car e andsuper vi si on of hi s mot her af t er si gni ng an af f i davi t . "

    6 As wi l l be expl ai ned l at er , consent and acqui escence ar econsi der ed def enses or except i ons t o a f i ndi ng of wr ongf ul r emovalor r et ent i on. However , her e t he di st r i ct cour t seemed t o consi derconsent and acqui escence i n connect i on wi t h i t s i nqui r y aboutwhet her a wr ongf ul r emoval or r et ent i on had occur r ed i n t he f i r stpl ace.

    -8-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    9/41

    between ni net y- one nat i ons7 t hat was adopt ed t o count er " t he

    pr obl em of i nt er nat i onal chi l d abduct i ons dur i ng domest i c

    di sput es. " Abbot t v. Abbot t , 560 U. S. 1, 8 ( 2010) . I t s obj ect i ve

    i s " t o secur e t he pr ompt r et ur n of chi l dr en wr ongf ul l y r emoved t o

    or r et ai ned i n any Cont r act i ng St at e, and t o ensur e t hat r i ght s of

    cust ody and of access under t he l aw of one Cont r act i ng St ate ar e

    ef f ect i vel y r espect ed i n t he ot her Cont r act i ng St at es. " I d.

    ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . And t he

    over r i di ng i nt ent i s " t o r est or e t he pr e- r emoval st at us quo and t o

    di scour age a par ent f r omengagi ng i n i nt er nat i onal f or umshoppi ng. "

    Kuf ner v. Kuf ner , 519 F. 3d 33, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Whal l on

    v. Lynn, 230 F. 3d 450, 455 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . "The ent i r e pur pose

    of t he Convent i on i s t o det er par ent s f r om abscondi ng wi t h t hei r

    chi l dr en and cr ossi ng i nt er nat i onal bor der s i n t he hopes of

    obt ai ni ng a f avor abl e cust ody det er mi nat i on i n a f r i endl i er

    7 As of J anuar y 27, 2014, ni net y- one count r i es had si gned on.Hague Conf er ence on Pr i vat e I nt er nat i onal Law, St at us t abl e 28:Convent i on of 25 Oct ober 1980 on t he Ci vi l Aspect s of I nt er nat i onalChi l d Abduct i on, ht t p: / / www. hcch. net / i ndex_en. php?act=convent i ons.st at us&ci d=24 ( l ast vi si t ed Febr uar y 3, 2014) .

    -9-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    10/41

    j ur i sdi ct i on. " 8 Wal ker v. Wal ker , 701 F. 3d 1110, 1116 ( 7t h Ci r .

    2012) .

    The i dea i s t hat a chi l d' s best i nt er est s ar e bet t er

    ser ved when deci si ons about cust ody r i ght s ar e made i n the count r y

    of habi t ual r esi dence. See Abbot t , 560 U. S. at 20. Thus, or der i ng

    t he r et ur n of a chi l d "does not al t er t he exi st i ng al l ocat i on of

    cust ody r i ght s. " I d. I nst ead, i t al l ows "t he cour t s of the

    [ chi l d' s] home count r y t o deci de what i s i n t he chi l d' s best

    i nt er est s. " I d. For t hi s r eason, t he Convent i on est abl i shes a

    st r ong pr esumpt i on i n f avor of r et ur ni ng a wr ongf ul l y r emoved or

    r et ai ned chi l d. See Kuf ner , 519 F. 3d at 38 ( ci t i ng 42 U. S. C.

    11601( a) ( 4) ) . However , t he Convent i on pr ovi des f or cer t ai n

    except i ons or def enses t o t hi s gener al r ul e. See Wal sh v. Wal sh,

    221 F. 3d 204, 216- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

    Wi t h t hi s bi gger pi ct ur e i n pl ace, we t ur n t o t he

    par t i es' cont ent i ons on appeal and t he cr i t er i a of our r evi ew.

    8 I CARA, t he Convent i on' s i mpl ement i ng st at ut e, i s t r ue to t heConvent i on' s pur pose. Accor di ng t o congr essi onal f i ndi ngs at t het i me of i t s enact ment , "[ i ] nt er nat i onal abduct i ons and r et ent i onsof chi l dr en ar e i ncr easi ng, and onl y concer t ed cooper at i on pur suantt o an i nt er nat i onal agr eement can ef f ect i vel y combat t hi s probl em. "42 U. S. C. 11601( a) ( 3) . Congr ess concl uded t hat " [ p] ersons shoul dnot be per mi t t ed t o obt ai n cust ody of chi l dr en by vi r t ue of t hei r

    wr ongf ul r emoval or r et ent i on. " I d. 11601( a) ( 2) . To ensur e t hepr ompt r et ur n of wr ongf ul l y r emoved or r et ai ned chi l dr en, Congr essgave st at e and f eder al di st r i ct cour t s concur r ent or i gi nalj ur i sdi ct i on over act i ons ar i si ng under t he Convent i on. I d. 11603( a) . Thei r aut hor i t y i s l i mi t ed t o t he det er mi nat i on ofr i ght s under t he Convent i on "and not t he mer i t s of any under l yi ngchi l d cust ody cl ai ms. " I d. 11601( b) ( 4) .

    -10-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    11/41

    IV. ARGUMENTS

    Mor e on t he ni t t y- gr i t t y of t he par t i es' posi t i ons wi l l

    f ol l ow, but her e i t suf f i ces t o not e t he f ol l owi ng. Dar n, f or hi s

    par t , ar gues t hat Ar gent i na i s LAD' s habi t ual pl ace of r esi dence

    and t hat he has been wr ongf ul l y r et ai ned i n Puer t o Ri co by Ol i ver o

    i n vi ol at i on of Dar n' s cust odi al r i ght s. Ol i ver o count er s t hat

    t here has been no retent i on because both parent s agr eed ( vi a the

    Af f i davi t ) t hat LAD woul d st ay i n Puer t o Ri co under her car e.

    Fur t her , Ol i ver o says, even assumi ng t her e was a r et ent i on, i t was

    not wr ongf ul ( as t hat t er m i s cont empl at ed by t he Convent i on)

    because she and Dar n agr eed t hat Puer t o Ri co was LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence. She suggest s t hat we consi der not onl y t he f act t hat

    t hi s change i n geogr aphy was agr eed t o, but al so LAD' s ext ended

    i nvol vement wi t h hi s f ami l y and communi t y i n Puer t o Ri co.

    Fi nal l y, Ol i ver o cont ends t hat , even wer e we t o f i nd t hat

    LAD was wr ongf ul l y r et ai ned i n vi ol at i on of t he Convent i on, she has

    some def enses at her di sposal . Speci f i cal l y, Ol i ver o cl ai ms t hat

    Dar n consent ed t o LAD r emai ni ng i n Puer t o Ri co or , at a mi ni mum,

    subsequent l y acqui esced t o t hi s ar r angement . Dar n st eadf ast l y

    mai nt ai ns t hat he never di d ei t her .

    V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

    We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear

    err or . Charal ambous v. Charal ambous, 627 F. 3d 462, 466 ( 1st Ci r .

    2010) ( ci t i ng Danai pour v. McLar ey, 286 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r .

    -11-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    12/41

    2002) ) . Under thi s st andar d, a di st r i ct cour t ' s pl ausi bl e

    i nt er pr et at i on of t he f act s cannot be r ej ect ed j ust because t he

    r ecor d mi ght sust ai n a conf l i ct i ng i nt er pr et at i on. I n r e

    O' Donnel l , 728 F. 3d 41, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . "[ T] o f i nd cl ear

    er r or , a f i ndi ng must hi t us as mor e than pr obabl y wr ong - - i t must

    pr ompt a st r ong, unyi el di ng bel i ef , based on t he whol e of t he

    r ecor d, t hat t he j udge made a mi st ake. " I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)

    ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s

    i nt er pr et at i on of t he Convent i on, al ong wi t h i t s appl i cat i on of t he

    Convent i on t o t he f act s, ar e r evi ewed de novo. Fel der v. Wet zel ,

    696 F. 3d 92, 98 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

    Wi t h r egar d t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on of

    habi t ual r esi dence i n par t i cul ar - - af t er f i ndi ng no oper at i ve

    Fi r st Ci r cui t case - - we have consi der ed, and f i nd hel pf ul , t he

    Sevent h Ci r cui t ' s appr oach. That cour t st at ed: "det er mi nat i ons of

    i nt ent i nvol ve quest i ons of f act and we wi l l def er t o t he di st r i ct

    cour t ' s f i ndi ngs on i nt ent unl ess t hey ar e cl ear l y er r oneous, "

    whi l e "[ t ] he ul t i mat e det er mi nat i on of habi t ual r esi dence i s a

    mi xed quest i on of l aw and f act t o whi ch we wi l l appl y de novo

    r evi ew. " Koch v. Koch, 450 F. 3d 703, 710 ( 7t h Ci r . 2006) . Seei ng

    no r eason t o depar t f r om t hi s appr oach, we now adopt i t .

    -12-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    13/41

    VI. WRONGFUL RETENTION

    We begi n by consi der i ng whet her t her e has been a wr ongf ul

    r et ent i on wi t hi n the meani ng of t he Convent i on. 9 42 U. S. C.

    11603( e) ( 1) ( A) . The l aw t el l s us t hat a r et ent i on i s wr ongf ul

    when: ( 1) "i t i s i n br each of r i ght s of cust ody at t r i but ed t o a

    per son, an i nst i t ut i on[ , ] or any ot her body, ei t her j oi nt l y or

    al one, under t he l aw of t he St at e i n whi ch t he chi l d was habi t ual l y

    r esi dent i mmedi at el y bef or e t he . . . r et ent i on; " and ( 2) "at t he

    t i me of . . . r et ent i on[ , ] t hose r i ght s wer e act ual l y exer ci sed,

    ei t her j oi nt l y or al one, or woul d have been so exer ci sed but f or

    t he . . . r et ent i on. " Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e 3 at 1501. And i n

    t he event of a wr ongf ul r et ent i on of a chi l d, t he r et ur n of t he

    chi l d t o hi s or her count r y of habi t ual r esi dence i s or di nar i l y

    cal l ed f or . See Wal sh, 221 F. 3d at 216.

    Pur suant t o I CARA, t he pet i t i oner bear s t he bur den of

    pr oof by a pr eponderance of t he evi dencce, 42 U. S. C. 11603( e) ( 1) ,

    and t he pet i t i oner must show t hat : ( 1) t he count r y t o whi ch t he

    9 As r ef er enced ear l i er , wr ongf ul r et ent i on i s not t he onl ygr ounds f or r et ur n of a chi l d; wr ongf ul r emoval can suf f i ce aswel l . But i t i s cl ear t hat we ar e not deal i ng wi t h a case ofwr ongf ul r emoval her e. LAD l ef t Ar gent i na wi t h bot h Dar n andOl i ver o, who made the mut ual deci si on t o t r avel out si de Ar gent i na

    wi t h t he chi l d. Nei t her par t y' s cust ody r i ght s wer e br eached att hat poi nt . I nst ead, t hi s case concer ns t he al l eged wr ongf ulr et ent i on of LAD by Ol i ver o i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Not abl y Dar n,al t hough he mi ght suspect t hat t he 2011 t r i p was par t of a schemet o br i ng LAD i nt o t he count r y, does not ar gue ot her wi se.Theref or e, t hi s i s t he l ast we need t o say on t he concept ofr emoval wi t h r espect t o t hi s case.

    -13-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    14/41

    chi l d' s r et ur n i s sought was t he chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence

    i mmedi at el y pr i or t o t he r et ent i on; ( 2) t he pet i t i oner had cust ody

    r i ght s over t he chi l d at t he t i me of t he r et ent i on; and ( 3) t he

    pet i t i oner was exer ci si ng t hose cust ody r i ght s. See Ni col son v.

    Pappal ar do, 605 F. 3d 100, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Whi l e t he bur den i s

    on t he pet i t i oner , we of t en hone i n on t he r espondent par ent ' s

    act i ons t o deter mi ne whet her a wr ongf ul r et ent i on has occur r ed.

    See, e. g. , i d. at 105 ( f ocusi ng on t he f act s sur r oundi ng t he

    r espondent mot her ' s r emoval of t he chi l d f r om Aust r al i a t o t he

    Uni t ed St at es and her act i ons af t er she ar r i ved i n t he Uni t ed

    St ates) ; Zuker v. Andr ews, 2 F. Supp. 2d 134, 140 ( D. Mass. 1998)

    ( concent r at i ng on t he respondent mot her ' s deci si on t o r ent her own

    apar t ment i n t he Uni t ed St at es) , af f ' d by Zuker v. Andr ews, 181

    F. 3d 81, 1999 WL 525936 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

    Here, t he i ssues are narr owed. No one di sput es t hat

    Dar n had cust ody r i ght s over LAD or t hat he was exer ci si ng t hemat

    t he t i me of t he al l eged r et ent i on. 10 The onl y quest i on i s whether

    Dar n has been abl e t o est abl i sh by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence

    t hat Ar gent i na ( t he count r y he seeks t o r et ur n hi s son t o) was

    LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence pr i or t o hi s r et ent i on. The di st r i ct

    cour t t hought Dar n f el l shor t , but our de novo r evi ew causes us t o

    di sagr ee. We expl ai n.

    10 Such a cl ai m woul d be dubi ous at best , as t he ver y l anguageof t he Af f i davi t , whi ch Ol i ver o dr af t ed, st at es "bot h [ Ol i ver o andDar n] ar e the par ent s wi t h cust ody of [ LAD] . "

    -14-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    15/41

    A. Date of Retention

    The f i r st pl ace we di ver ge f r omt he di st r i ct cour t i s t he

    quest i on of when LAD' s al l eged r et ent i on occur r ed. Thi s i ssue i s

    i mport ant because, as we sai d, Dar n needs t o pr ove t hat Ar gent i na

    was LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence i mmedi at el y pr i or t o t he r et ent i on i n

    or der f or t he r et ent i on t o be wr ongf ul . See Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at

    103. As not ed above, t he di st r i ct cour t i ndi cat ed i n a f oot not e

    t hat i t was cl ear t hat t he r el evant dat e of r et ent i on was J ul y

    2011, whi ch was when Dar n l ef t Puer t o Ri co. Dar n, however , i n

    hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on wi t h t he di str i ct cour t , and bef or e t hi s

    cour t , argued t hat t he r etent i on occur r ed i n mi d- March 2011, when

    Ol i ver o i nf or med hi mt hat she woul d be remai ni ng i n Puer t o Ri co. 11

    We f i nd t he r ecor d as a whol e suppor t s Dar n' s posi t i on.

    The r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t he par t i es t r avel ed f r om

    Ar gent i na t o t he Uni t ed St at es i n l at e J anuar y 2011 f or vacat i on

    pur poses. They were schedul ed t o r et ur n t o Ar gent i na on March 2,

    2011. That depart ur e date was "del ayed" due t o Ol i ver o' s

    i nvol vement i n a car acci dent and her i nt er est i n pur sui ng a

    busi ness vent ur e. At f i r st , Dar n went al ong wi t h t he del ay - -

    11 Though onl y a di f f erence of a f ew mont hs, t he di ver gence

    bet ween t he March 2011 dat e (when Ol i vero t ol d Dar n she want ed t ost ay) and t he J ul y 2011 dat e ( when Dar n l ef t Puer t o Ri co) i ssi gni f i cant i n t hat t he Af f i davi t was si gned i n bet ween t hose twodat es. As we wi l l expl ai n f ur t her , because t he di st r i ct cour t wentwi t h t he J ul y dat e, i t i ncl uded i n i t s anal ysi s, and r el i ed qui t eheavi l y on, t he Af f i davi t t o suppor t i t s f i ndi ng t hat Puer t o Ri cohad become LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence.

    -15-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    16/41

    t est i f yi ng "wi t h a t r agedy l i ke t hat , I sai d t hat i t was f i ne" - -

    whi l e r emai ni ng under t he i mpr essi on t hat t hey woul d ret ur n to

    Ar gent i na. By mi d- Mar ch 2011, Ol i ver o made i t cl ear t o Dar n t hat

    she and t hei r son woul d be permanent l y r esi di ng i n t he Uni t ed

    States. 12 Thi s l ast det ai l i s cr uci al t o our dat e of r et ent i on

    anal ysi s. We ar e mi ndf ul t hat "[ i ] t i s not easy . . . t o at t ach an

    abst r act l abel t o a compl ex of di scret e f act s, " especi al l y wher e

    subj ect i ve i nt ent i s at i ssue. Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 105. Thi s i s

    perhaps even more so t r ue where t he compl exi t i es of i nt i mat e human

    r el at i onshi ps ar e concer ned. Even so, we ar e conf i dent t hat

    Ol i ver o' s mi d- Mar ch decl ar at i on t hat she woul d r emai n i n t he Uni t ed

    St at es mer i t s t he si gni f i cance we have pl aced on i t . Her act i ons

    af t er war ds onl y conf i r m t hi s. Ol i ver o, t r ue t o her wor d, r ef used

    t o ret ur n t o Ar gent i na.

    Once Ol i ver o deci ded t o st ay i n t he Uni t ed St at es wi t h

    t he chi l d, t here was not hi ng Dar n coul d do t o pr event a separ at i on

    f r omhi s son. Hi s t our i st vi sa excl uded t he possi bi l i t y of st ayi ng

    i ndef i ni t el y wi t h LAD i n t he Uni t ed St at es, and he coul d not t ake

    LAD back t o Ar gent i na because t he POA aut hor i zi ng t he chi l d t o

    t r avel wi t h onl y one parent had been r evoked. Basi cal l y, as of

    mi d- March 2011, Dar n had no l egal way of r emai ni ng wi t h hi s son.

    12 Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s opi ni on, "[ i ] t i suncont est ed t hat , by mi d Mar ch 2011, [ Ol i ver o] t ol d [ Dar n] of heri nt ent i ons t o r esi de per manent l y i n Puer t o Ri co wi t h t he chi l d. "

    -16-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    17/41

    We ar e cogni zant of t he def er ent i al st andar d of r evi ew

    t hat we must af f or d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f act - bound det er mi nat i ons,

    see Charal ambous, 627 F. 3d at 466, but we do not t hi nk t he recor d

    per mi t s t he concl usi on dr awn by the di st r i ct cour t wi t h r egar ds t o

    t he i ssue of r et ent i on. The cour t cl ear l y er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat

    t he r et ent i on occur r ed i n J ul y. The al l eged wr ongf ul r et ent i on i n

    f act occur r ed i n mi d- March 2011.

    B. Habitual Residence

    Gi ven our det er mi nat i on on t he dat e of r et ent i on, t he

    quest i on now becomes whet her Ar gent i na - - i . e. , t he count r y t o

    whi ch t he chi l d' s r et ur n i s bei ng sought - - was LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence i n mi d- March 2011.

    "[ A] chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence i s t he pl ace wher e he or

    she has been physi cal l y pr esent f or an amount of t i me suf f i ci ent

    f or accl i mat i zat i on and whi ch has a ' degr ee of set t l ed pur pose'

    f r om t he chi l d' s per spect i ve. " Feder v. Evans- Feder , 63 F. 3d 217,

    224 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) . Thi s det er mi nat i on "must f ocus on t he chi l d

    and consi st s of an anal ysi s of t he chi l d' s ci r cumst ances i n t hat

    pl ace and t he par ent s' pr esent , shar ed i nt ent i ons r egar di ng t he

    chi l d' s pr esence. " I d. The r equi r ed degr ee of set t l ed pur pose

    does not necessar i l y ent ai l an i nt ent i on t o st ay i n t he pl ace

    i ndef i ni t el y; i t "may be f or a l i mi t ed per i od. " I d. at 223. I t

    coul d encompass one or mul t i pl e goal s, and be ei t her general or

    speci f i c. I d. For exampl e, a set t l ed pur pose wi t h r espect t o

    -17-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    18/41

    r esi dence coul d be " [ e] ducat i on, busi ness or pr of essi on,

    empl oyment , heal t h, f ami l y or mer el y l ove of t he pl ace. " I d.

    I n cases i nvol vi ng mor e than one pot ent i al r esi dence, a

    di st i nct i on must be made bet ween t he abandonment of a pr i or

    habi t ual r esi dence and t he acqui si t i on of a new one. See Mozes v.

    Mozes, 239 F. 3d 1067, 1075 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) . A person cannot

    acqui r e a new habi t ual r esi dence wi t hout " f or mi ng a set t l ed

    i nt ent i on t o abandon t he one l ef t behi nd. " I d. "Ot her wi se, one i s

    not habi t ual l y resi di ng; one i s away f or a t empor ar y absence of

    l ong or shor t dur at i on. " I d. Thi s set t l ed i nt ent i on "coul d

    coal esce dur i ng t he cour se of a st ay abr oad or i gi nal l y i nt ended t o

    be t empor ar y. " I d.

    When t he quest i on i s whet her a young chi l d - - l acki ng

    bot h t he mat er i al and psychol ogi cal means t o deci de where he or she

    wi l l r esi de - - has abandoned a pr i or habi t ual r esi dence, "t he

    i nt ent i on or pur pose whi ch has t o be t aken i nt o account i s t hat of

    t he per son or per sons ent i t l ed t o f i x the pl ace of t he chi l d' s

    r esi dence. " Mozes, 239 F. 3d at 1076 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

    quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . And "when t he per sons ent i t l ed t o f i x

    t he chi l d' s r esi dence no l onger agr ee on wher e i t has been f i xed, "

    t hen t he "cour t s must det er mi ne f r omal l avai l abl e evi dence whet her

    t he par ent pet i t i oni ng f or r et ur n of a chi l d has al r eady agr eed t o

    t he chi l d' s t aki ng up habi t ual r esi dence wher e i t i s. " I d.

    -18-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    19/41

    Gener al l y, i t i s "t he par ent s' shar ed i nt ent or set t l ed

    pur pose r egar di ng t hei r chi l d' s r esi dence" t hat gui des our i nqui r y.

    Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 103- 04 ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Bar zi l ay v.

    Bar zi l ay, 600 F. 3d 912, 918 ( 8t h Ci r . 2010) ; Maxwel l v. Maxwel l ,

    588 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ; Koch, 450 F. 3d at 715; Gi t t er v.

    Gi t t er , 396 F. 3d 124, 131- 32 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ; Mozes, 239 F. 3d at

    1076- 81; Feder , 63 F. 3d at 224) . One parent ' s wi shes ar e not

    suf f i ci ent , by t hemsel ves, t o ef f ect a change i n a chi l d' s habi t ual

    r esi dence. See Feder , 63 F. 3d at 224- 26 ( f i ndi ng a uni l at er al

    deci si on or change of hear t by one par t y cannot al t er t he par t i es'

    shar ed i nt ent r egar di ng habi t ual r esi dence) . Never t hel ess, "a

    chi l d can

    l ose i t s habi t ual at t achment t o a pl ace even wi t hout a

    par ent ' s consent . . . i f t he obj ecti ve f acts poi nt unequi vocal l y

    t o a per son' s or di nar y or habi t ual r esi dence bei ng i n a par t i cul ar

    pl ace. " Mozes, 239 F. 3d at 1081 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

    quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Af t er al l , "[ h] abi t ual r esi dence i s

    i nt ended t o be a descr i pt i on of a f actual st at e of af f ai r s. " I d.

    Ut i l i zi ng Dar n' s J ul y 2011 depar t ur e dat e as t he

    oper at i ve dat e of r et ent i on, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he

    Af f i davi t ( si gned a coupl e days bef or e) , "cl ear l y show[ ed] t he

    par ent s' l ast shar ed i nt ent i n det er mi ni ng habi t ual r esi dence. "

    Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t , even t hough t he or i gi nal pur pose

    of t he J anuar y 31, 2011 t r i p t o Fl or i da and Puer t o Ri co was f or

    vacat i on and not f or r el ocat i on, t he par t i es' shar ed i nt ent changed

    -19-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    20/41

    whi l e i n Puer t o Ri co. I t f ound si gni f i cant t he Af f i davi t ' s open-

    ended nat ur e i n not set t i ng f or t h an end dat e f or i t s pr ovi si ons

    r egar di ng t he car e and super vi si on of LAD. I t al so f ound t el l i ng

    t hat " t her e ha[ d] been a change i n geogr aphy f or an ' appr eci abl e

    per i od of t i me' t hat [ was] ' suf f i ci ent f or accl i mat i zat i on. ' " The

    cour t ' s ul t i mat e concl usi on: t he Uni t ed St at es was LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence pr i or t o t he al l eged r et ent i on. Af t er conduct i ng a de

    novo r evi ew, we concl ude t hat t hi s det er mi nat i on i s f l awed.

    Her e, a t hor ough audi t of t he r ecor d r eveal s t her e i s no

    evi dence t o pl ausi bl y suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on

    t hat t he Uni t ed St at es, not Ar gent i na, was LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence. Fi r st , we not e t hat t he si gni ng of t he Af f i davi t - - on

    whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t pl aced so much i mpor t ance - - i s i r r el evant

    t o our pr esent i nqui r y. We ar e l ooki ng f or LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence i mmedi at el y bef or e t he r et ent i on and t he Af f i davi t was

    si gned on J ul y 7, 2011, whi l e t he r et ent i on ( f or t he r easons

    expl ai ned above) t ook pl ace mont hs ear l i er i n mi d- March 2011.

    Based on t he uncont est ed f act s, i t i s saf e t o say t hat ,

    pr i or t o mi d- Mar ch 2011, t he par t i es' shar ed i nt ent was not f or t he

    chi l d t o be a habi t ual r esi dent of t he Uni t ed St at es. I n f act , i t

    was t he par t i es' shar ed i nt ent t o r et ur n t o Ar gent i na on Mar ch 2,

    2011. And Ol i ver o does not deny t hi s was t he pl an; i n f act , she

    -20-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    21/41

    t est i f i ed as much. 13 Ol i vero admi t s i t was she who had a change of

    hear t once i n Puer t o Ri co and deci ded t o st ay t her e wi t h her son.

    I t was her wi sh t hat t hey st ay i n t he Uni t ed St at es wi t h her

    f ami l y. Unf or t unat el y f or Ol i ver o, a uni l at er al deci si on i s not

    enough. See Feder , 63 F. 3d at 224- 26. There i s si mpl y no evi dence

    i n t he r ecor d f r om whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t coul d have f ound a

    mut ual i nt ent t o change t hei r son' s habi t ual r esi dence on t he dat e

    of r et ent i on.

    Fur t her mor e, t he di st r i ct cour t was mi sgui ded i n

    emphasi zi ng LAD' s accl i mat i zat i on t o t he Uni t ed St at es f or pur poses

    of i t s habi t ual r esi dence det er mi nat i on. Evi dence of

    accl i mat i zat i on i s not enough t o est abl i sh a chi l d' s habi t ual

    r esi dence i n a new count r y when cont r ar y par ent al i nt ent exi st s.

    See Mozes, 239 F. 3d at 1078- 79. 14 A "change i n geogr aphy" and " t he

    passage of an appr eci abl e per i od of t i me . . . t hat i s suf f i ci ent

    f or accl i mat i zat i on" ar e consi der at i ons f or t he cour t when "t he

    deci si on t o al t er a chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence depends on t he

    13 When asked whet her , at t he t i me t he f ami l y was i n Or l ando,she st i l l i nt ended t o r et ur n t o Ar gent i na, Ol i ver o r esponded: "Ourpl ans wer e t o come t o Puer t o Ri co and spend some t i me her e and,t hen, at t he t i me, go back to Ar gent i na. "

    14 Of cour se, some si t uat i ons wi l l ar i se wher e "a chi l d' s l i f emay become so f i r ml y embedded i n the new count r y as t o make i thabi t ual l y resi dent even t hough t her e be l i nger i ng par ent ali nt ent i ons t o t he cont r ar y, " but t hi s i s pr eci sel y why t hedet er mi nat i on of habi t ual r esi dence i s made on a case- by- casebasi s. Mozes, 239 F. 3d at 1078. And t hi s was not LAD' s si t uat i oni n mi d- March 2011.

    -21-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    22/41

    [ shar ed] set t l ed i nt ent i on of t he par ent s. " I d. at 1078 ( ci t at i ons

    omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n t he absence of

    shar ed par ent al i nt ent , t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have "be[ en] sl ow

    t o i nf er . . . an ear l i er habi t ual r esi dence has been abandoned. "

    I d. at 1079.

    As of mi d- Mar ch 2011, t he obj ect i ve f act s do not poi nt

    unequi vocal l y t o LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence bei ng t he Uni t ed St at es.

    I f anyt hi ng, an obj ect i ve observer woul d t hi nk Ar gent i na was LAD' s

    habi t ual r esi dence: hi s f at her was a ci t i zen of Ar gent i na; hi s

    par ent s' r el at i onshi p began and f l our i shed i n Ar gent i na; he was

    bor n i n Ar gent i na - - i ndeed, hi s mot her f l ew t o t he Uni t ed St at es

    when she was pr egnant wi t h hi m, but r et ur ned t o Ar gent i na t o gi ve

    bi r t h; he had Ar gent i ne ci t i zenshi p; hi s f i r st mont hs of l i f e wer e

    spent i n Ar gent i na wher e hi s par ent s l i ved; and he r et ur ned t o

    Ar gent i na ever y t i me he t r avel ed t o t he Uni t ed St at es. See

    Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 104 ( appl yi ng t he l ens of an obj ect i ve

    observer t o det er mi ne whet her t he chi l d was a habi t ual r esi dent of

    Aust r al i a) . Bef or e t he par t i es' t r i p t o t he Uni t ed St at es on

    J anuar y 31, 2011, LAD had been l i vi ng i n Ar gent i na f or t wo year s.

    He had st ar t ed ki ndergart en, whi ch he had been at t endi ng f or f our

    mont hs and whi ch he was supposed t o st ar t agai n i n Mar ch 2011. 15

    Fur t hermore, t he chi l d had a gr andmot her , a gr eat - gr andmot her and

    cousi ns i n Buenos Ai r es, wi t h whom we must assume he had st r ong

    15 The school year i n Ar gent i na i s f r om Mar ch t o December .

    -22-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    23/41

    t i es. 16 The r ecor d si mpl y does not suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    concl usi on t hat t he Uni t ed St at es, and not Ar gent i na, was LAD' s

    habi t ual r esi dence.

    Fur t her , t he f act t hat LAD may have spent more aggr egat e

    t i me i n t he Uni t ed St at es t han i n Ar gent i na ( a st at t hat Ol i ver o

    emphasi zes) , i s not di sposi t i ve. I t i s onl y one f act or i n our

    anal ysi s. See Bar zi l ay, 536 F. 3d at 851- 52 ( det er mi ni ng a chi l d' s

    habi t ual r esi dence requi r es anal yzi ng many f act or s, amongst whi ch

    are a change i n geogr aphy and t he passage of t i me) . The f act t hat

    a chi l d f r equent l y vi si t s r el at i ves i n anot her count r y f or ext ended

    per i ods of t i me, by i t sel f , does not mean t he second count r y i s or

    becomes t he chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence. Cf . Mozes, 239 F. 3d at

    1074 ( "The obvi ous r eason why [ a] camper i s not r egarded as

    habi t ual l y r esi dent [ of t he summer camp] i s t hat he al r eady has an

    est abl i shed habi t ual r esi dence el sewher e and hi s absence f r om

    i t - even f or an ent i r e summer - i s no i ndi cat i on t hat he means t o

    abandon i t . ") .

    The evi dence on r ecor d does not show t hat t he par t i es

    shar ed an i nt ent t o change LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence t o t he Uni t ed

    St at es, but i nst ead i t poi nt s onl y t o Ol i ver o' s i ndi vi dual i nt ent

    16 Ol i ver o, her sel f , t est i f i ed t hat af t er J ul y 2011, she "made[ LAD] cal l hi s gr andmother and gr eat - gr andmother" because " [ she]want ed hi m t o have r el at i on [ si c] wi t h t hem. " We do not see whyt hi s woul d not be the case when t he chi l d was l i vi ng i n t he samecount r y as t hese f ami l y member s, as t he nat ur al i mpl i cat i on of t hi st est i mony i s t hat Ol i ver o wi shed t o cont i nue an al r eady exi st i ngr el at i onshi p wi t h LAD' s pat er nal f ami l y.

    -23-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    24/41

    t o do so. Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t hat t he cour t ' s f i ndi ng

    ot her wi se was cl ear l y er r oneous. For al l t he f or egoi ng r easons

    ( and appl yi ng t he de novo st andard of r evi ew t he ul t i mate habi t ual

    r esi dence det er mi nat i on cal l s f or ) we f i nd t hat Dar n has

    est abl i shed by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence t hat LAD' s habi t ual

    r esi dence as of t he ret ent i on was Ar gent i na.

    C. The End Result

    Because ther e i s no di sput e as t o Dar n' s cust ody r i ght s

    over LAD or t hat he was act ual l y exer ci si ng t hose r i ght s at t he

    t i me, i t necessar i l y f ol l ows t hat Ol i ver o wr ongf ul l y r et ai ned LAD

    i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Though we f i nd t hat a wr ongf ul r et ent i on

    occur r ed, t hi s det er mi nat i on i s not di sposi t i ve of t he case. As we

    ment i oned ear l i er , t he Convent i on pr ovi des f or cer t ai n except i ons

    or def enses t o the r et ur n of a chi l d t o hi s or her count r y of

    habi t ual r esi dence f ol l owi ng a wr ongf ul r et ent i on. See Ni col son,

    605 F. 3d at 105. And so, we t ur n our at t ent i on t o t he def enses

    mai nt ai ned by Ol i ver o.

    VII. DEFENSES

    Among t he Convent i on' s provi ded- f or except i ons t o a

    chi l d' s r et ur n - - and t he ones t hat Ol i ver o asser t s her e - - ar e

    consent and acqui escence. 17 See Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e 13a at

    17 The ot her except i ons ar e: ( 1) t he exi st ence of a gr ave r i skt hat t he chi l d' s r et ur n "woul d expose t he chi l d t o physi cal orpsychol ogi cal har m or ot her wi se pl ace t he chi l d i n an i nt ol er abl esi t uat i on, " Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e 13b at 1502; ( 2) "[ t ] her et ur n of t he chi l d . . . woul d not be permi t t ed by t he f undament al

    -24-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    25/41

    1502 ( "[ T] he j udi ci al or admi ni st r at i ve aut hor i t y of t he r equest ed

    St at e i s not bound t o or der t he r et ur n of t he chi l d i f t he per son,

    i nst i t ut i on or ot her body . . . havi ng t he car e of t he per son of

    t he chi l d . . . had consent ed t o or subsequent l y acqui esced i n t he

    r emoval or r et ent i on. " ) . Consent and acqui escence embody t wo

    separate def enses. See Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 103. "The consent

    def ense i nvol ves t he pet i t i oner ' s conduct pr i or t o t he cont est ed

    r emoval or r et ent i on, whi l e acqui escence addr esses whet her t he

    pet i t i oner subsequent l y agr eed t o or accept ed t he r emoval or

    r et ent i on. " Baxt er v. Baxter , 423 F. 3d 363, 371 ( 3d Ci r . 2005)

    ( emphases added) ( ci t i ng Gonzal ez- Cabal l ero v. Mena, 251 F. 3d 789,

    794 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ) .

    I n or der f or t he opponent of a chi l d' s r et ur n t o

    successf ul l y asser t ei t her def ense, he or she must est abl i sh t he

    pet i t i oner ' s consent or acqui escence by a pr eponder ance of t he

    evi dence. See 42 U. S. C. 11603( e) ( 2) ( B) ; see al so Ni col son, 605

    F. 3d at 105. Fur t her , consent and acqui escence are both

    pr i nci pl es of t he r equest ed St at e r el at i ng t o t he pr ot ect i on ofhuman r i ght s and f undament al f r eedoms, " Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e20 at 1503; ( 3) t he pet i t i on f or r et ur n of a chi l d i s not commenced

    wi t hi n one year of t he wr ongf ul r emoval or r et ent i on and " t he chi l di s now set t l ed i n i t s new envi r onment , " Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e12 at 1502; " and ( 4) " t he per son, i nst i t ut i on or ot her body havi ngt he car e of t he per son of t he chi l d was not act ual l y exer ci si ng t hecust ody r i ght s at t he t i me of r emoval or r et ent i on, " Convent i on,supr a Ar t i cl e 13a at 1502. None of t hese except i ons have beenargued her e.

    -25-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    26/41

    af f i r mat i ve def enses t hat shoul d be nar r owl y const r ued. See

    Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 105.

    Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t - - i ncor r ect l y usi ng t he t er ms

    consent and acqui escence i nt erchangeabl y - - f ound t hat Dar n had

    agr eed t o LAD r emai ni ng i n the Uni t ed St at es. 18 I t f ound t hat

    Dar n, by si gni ng t he Af f i davi t , "vol unt ar i l y and wi t hout

    i nt i mi dat i on, t hr eat s or coer ci on" was agr eei ng t hat LAD coul d st ay

    i n t he Uni t ed St at es f or an i ndef i ni t e per i od of t i me. Accor di ng

    t o t he di st r i ct cour t , "[ i ] t i s har d t o t hi nk of a mor e f or mal

    acqui escence or al t er nat i vel y a wai ver of Hague Convent i on r i ght s

    t han vol unt ar i l y ent er i ng i nt o an agr eement si gned bef or e a Not ar y

    Publ i c as t he one si gned i n t hi s case. " The cour t al so f ound t hat

    Dar n had "consent [ ed] t o LAD' s r et ent i on i n t he Uni t ed St at es

    because he " f ai l ed f or f i ve ( 5) mont hs t o make any meani ngf ul

    ef f or t t o obt ai n r et ur n of t he mi nor chi l d and f ai l ed t o pay any

    chi l d suppor t . "

    The evi dence on r ecor d compel s us t o concl ude t hat t he

    cour t got i t wr ong. We t ake t he t wo def enses i n t ur n.

    18 The di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s of t he consent andacqui escence i ssue i s somewhat conf usi ng i n t hat , as we sai d, i t i si nt er mi ngl ed wi t h t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on of whet her a wr ongf ul

    r et ent i on occur r ed at al l . The cour t , af t er di scussi ng bot hconsent and acqui escence i n connect i on wi t h i t s r et ent i on anal ysi s,t hen i ncl uded a f oot not e at t he end of t he deci si on, whi chi ndi cat ed t hat " f or t he sake of t he ar gument , " even i f Dar n hadest abl i shed a wr ongf ul r etent i on, t he out come woul d have been t hesame because Ol i vero had proven t he def enses of consent oracqui escence.

    -26-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    27/41

    A. Consent

    Our det ermi nat i on of whet her Dar n consent ed t o LAD

    r emai ni ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es must necessar i l y f ocus on hi s i nt ent

    bef or e t he chi l d' s mi d- Mar ch 2011 r et ent i on. See Ni col son, 605

    F. 3d at 105 ( ci t i ng Baxt er , 423 F. 3d at 371) . "Consent may be

    evi nced by t he pet i t i oner ' s st at ement s or conduct , whi ch can be

    r at her i nf or mal . " I d. What t he pet i t i oner act ual l y cont empl at ed

    and agr eed t o, as wel l as t he nat ur e and scope of t he pet i t i oner ' s

    consent - - i ncl udi ng any condi t i ons or l i mi t at i ons - - shoul d be

    t aken i nt o account . See Wal ker , 701 F. 3d at 1122- 23.

    Ri ght of f t he bat , we not e t hat our consent i nqui r y

    f ocuses on t he t i me pr i or t o t he r et ent i on and t her ef or e Dar n' s

    si gni ng of t he Af f i davi t i s out of pl ay. 19 Rat her , we must f ocus

    on t he par t i es' conduct pr i or t o mi d- Mar ch 2011. Ther e i s l i t t l e

    Ol i ver o can r el y on t o suppor t a consent def ense dur i ng t hi s t i me

    per i od. 20 The onl y i magi nabl e argument woul d be t hat Dar n

    consent ed t o LAD' s r et ent i on because he vi si t ed t he Uni t ed St at es

    i n J anuar y 2011 despi t e hi s knowl edge of Ol i ver o' s previ ous i nt ent

    19 Even wer e we to assume that t he di st r i ct cour t ' s J ul yr et ent i on dat e was cor r ect , and t her ef or e the Af f i davi t shoul d beconsi der ed, we woul d st i l l f i nd t hat no consent was gi ven. For t hesame reasons t hat t he Af f i davi t does not const i t ut e an acqui escence

    ( det ai l ed l at er ) , i t does not const i t ut e a gr ant of consent .20 Ol i ver o di d not di f f er ent i at e bet ween t he def enses of

    consent and acqui escence i n her ar gument t o t hi s cour t . Nor di dshe di st i ngui sh bet ween t he pr e- r et ent i on and post - r et ent i on t i meper i ods. Ther ef or e, i t i s di f f i cul t t o pr eci sel y par se out whather argument s were as t o each def ense.

    -27-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    28/41

    t o l eave Ar gent i na and set t l e i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Thi s ar gument

    r uns agai nst a wal l .

    Al t hough t her e i s pl ent y of evi dence t hat Ol i ver o had

    been l ooki ng i nt o movi ng t o t he Uni t ed St at es wi t h LAD, t he onl y

    i nci dent t he recor d shows Dar n t o be awar e of was Ol i ver o' s

    at t empt t o r emai n wi t h LAD i n t he Uni t ed St ates i n March of 2010.

    Accordi ng t o bot h part i es' t est i mony, however , t hey had moved on

    f r omt hi s di sagr eement . Ol i ver o had r et ur ned t o Ar gent i na i n Apr i l

    2010 and had deci ded t o st ay t her e, ul t i mat el y reconci l i ng wi t h

    Dar n sever al mont hs l at er . 21 The deci si on t o t ake t he J anuar y 31,

    2011 t r i p was made af t er t he part i es r econci l ed and moved back i n

    t oget her . She had apol ogi zed f or t he i nci dent , and he had f or gi ven

    her. 22 At t hi s poi nt i n t i me, Dar n was not awar e of Ol i ver o' s

    l egal i nqui r i es i nt o r el ocat i ng wi t h LAD t o t he Uni t ed St at es.

    Dar n t est i f i ed t hat i t was not unt i l af t er Mar ch 2011 t hat he

    f ound out t hat "dur i ng t hose seven mont hs t hat she had been i n

    Ar gent i na, she had st ar t ed t o ask ar ound how she coul d escape f r om

    Ar gent i na. "

    21 Accor di ng to Dar n' s t est i mony, by t he end of J anuar y 2011,"[ t he coupl e] deci ded t o r econci l e. " Ol i ver o admi t s she "s t ayed i nAr gent i na . . . [ a] nd subsequent l y . . . t r i ed t o make bet t er t hes i t uat i on or . . . reconci l i at e. "

    22Dar n t est i f i ed: "We wer e r eal l y happy, and our r el at i onshi pwas ver y good, and she acknowl edged t o me t hat she had made ami st ake wi t h what she had done. . . . [ S] he was . . . my woman.She was t he mot her of my chi l d. And my boy was compl et el y happy.I was very happy. And so, as we say i n Ar gent i na, we j ust movedon. "

    -28-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    29/41

    As we sai d above, t he undi sputed evi dence shows t hat when

    t he par t i es l ef t Ar gent i na, t hei r mut ual i nt ent was f or a vi si t of

    l i mi t ed dur at i on; t hey had a schedul ed r et ur n dat e of Mar ch 2,

    2011. I t was not unr easonabl e f or Dar n t o bel i eve t hat t he t r i p

    was nothi ng more than a f ami l y vacat i on, and t hat t hey woul d r etur n

    t oget her t o Ar gent i na j ust as t hey had mul t i pl e t i mes bef or e.

    Accor di ng t o Dar n' s t est i mony, " [ t hey] t r i ed t o t r avel as much as

    [ t hey] coul d so t hat [ LAD] coul d shar e wi t h hi s f ami l y . . . i n

    Puer t o Ri co, and al so f or [ Ol i ver o] t o be abl e t o shar e . . . wi t h

    her f ami l y. " The f act t hat Dar n agr eed t o go on t hi s vacat i on i s

    not evi dence of hi m consent i ng t o t hei r son r el ocat i ng t o t he

    Uni t ed St at es.

    I n sum, t he obj ect i ve f act s i n t he recor d poi nt t o one

    concl usi on onl y: Dar n di d not consent t o LAD' s ret ent i on i n t he

    Uni t ed St ates i n mi d- March 2011. Accordi ngl y, Ol i ver o has not made

    t he requi r ed pr eponderance- of - t he- evi dence showi ng and her consent

    def ense f ai l s. The out come of t hi s case t ur ns on whether Dar n

    subsequent l y acqui esced t o t he r et ent i on.

    B. Acquiescence

    Because t he def ense of acqui escence pert ai ns onl y t o what

    happened post - r et ent i on, t he rel evant per i od f or us t o consi der i s

    bet ween mi d- Mar ch 2011 and Dar n' s f i l i ng of t he pet i t i on f or

    r et ur n on December 19, 2011. See Baxt er , 423 F. 3d at 371.

    Acqui escence t ends t o r equi r e mor e f or mal i t y t han consent - - e. g. ,

    -29-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    30/41

    t est i mony i n a j udi ci al pr oceedi ng, a convi nci ng wr i t t en

    r enunci at i on of r i ght s, or a consi st ent at t i t ude over a si gni f i cant

    per i od of t i me. See i d. Whi l e some cases pr esent a si t uat i on

    wher e t her e i s a cl ear - cut , f or mal acqui escence - - such as a

    consent or der by a non- U. S. parent agr eei ng t o l et a st at e cour t

    deci de f i nal cust ody - - many t i mes, cases pr esent ci r cumst ances

    t hat ar e a l i t t l e hazi er . See Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 107. When

    at t empt i ng t o character i ze ambi guous conduct as a basi s f or

    i nf er r ed acqui escence, cour t s empl oy a pur e subj ect i ve i nt ent

    i nqui r y. See i d. Of cour se, t he subj ect i ve i nt ent r ef er s t o t he

    subj ect i ve i nt ent of t he par ent who i s cl ai med t o have acqui esced.

    See Baxt er , 423 F. 3d at 371.

    Ol i ver o' s pr i mar y ar gument i s t hat t he Af f i davi t

    evi dences Dar n' s acqui escence t o LAD r emai ni ng i n t he Uni t ed

    St at es. Thi s i s a dead end. Acqui escence t o LAD' s r et ent i on i n

    t he Uni t ed St at es cannot be f ound i n t he pl ai n l anguage of t he

    Af f i davi t , nor can t he Af f i davi t be r ead t o i mpl y such. The

    di st r i ct cour t was mi st aken i n concl udi ng i t di d.

    A r eadi ng of t he Af f i davi t r eveal s no ment i on i n t he

    ent i r e t wo- page document , expr ess or i mpl i ed, of est abl i shi ng a new

    r esi dence i n, or per manent l y r el ocat i ng t o, t he Uni t ed St at es. I t

    mer el y st at es t hat Dar n "must l eave t he count r y agai nst hi s wi l l ; "

    t hat LAD " i s not bei ng abandoned by hi s f ather" and "wi l l be under

    t he car e and super vi si on of hi s mot her . . . wi t h hi s f at her ' s

    -30-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    31/41

    absence; " t hat Ol i ver o i s aut hor i zed "t o f ol l ow al l t he necessar y

    st eps i n or der t o benef i t t hei r chi l d as r egar ds t o educat i on,

    heal t h and al l r el at ed t o t he mi nor ' s i nt er est s and wel l - bei ng; "

    and t hat LAD "i s aut hor i zed t o t r avel wi t h ei t her par ent . . . t o

    any pl ace i n t he wor l d. " The Af f i davi t i s si mpl y an agr eement

    bet ween parent s wi t h j oi nt cust ody to pr ovi de f or t he car e and

    wel l - bei ng of t hei r mi nor son dur i ng t he f or ced absence of one

    par ent . I t i s but a l egal i nst r ument t hat aut hor i zes Ol i ver o t o

    make deci si ons f or t he chi l d' s wel f ar e. Not hi ng mor e.

    Al so, t he f act t hat t he Af f i davi t cont ai ns open- ended

    t erms i s not evi dence that Dar n acqui esced t o LAD r emai ni ng

    per manent l y i n t he Uni t ed St at es. The di st r i ct cour t pl aced t oo

    much i mpor t ance on t he Af f i davi t ' s i ndef i ni t eness and r ead i nt o i t

    a decl ar at i on of accept ance not suppor t ed by i t s l anguage. Whi l e

    i t i s t r ue t hat t he Af f i davi t does not cont empl at e a speci f i c t i me

    per i od f or t he dur at i on of i t s ef f ect, i t i s i mpr oper t o t r ansf or m

    t he absence of an end dat e i nto acqui escence. The mere f act t hat

    t he Af f i davi t does not have an expi r at i on dat e does not necessar i l y

    mean i t was meant t o be permanent ; i t coul d ver y wel l mean the

    i nt ended dur at i on was unknown. And i n f act , i t woul d seem t he

    dur at i on was unknown si nce Ol i ver o di d not i ndi cat e when, i f ever ,

    she woul d ret ur n to Ar gent i na - - a poi nt she equi vocat ed on once

    Dar n r et ur ned t o Ar gent i na. Fur t her mor e, l ogi cal l y speaki ng, one

    who execut es a l egal document wi t h the i ntent of maki ng per manent

    -31-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    32/41

    a cur r ent st at e of af f ai r s ot her wi se open t o change, expr esses as

    much i n i t .

    I f anyt hi ng, t he Af f i davi t demonst r at es Dar n' s desi r e t o

    be responsi bl e and pr ovi de f or hi s chi l d when hi s own back was

    agai nst t he wal l . Moreover , even when we l ook beyond t he

    Af f i davi t ' s l anguage and i nst ead consi der t he par t i es' expl anat i ons

    gi ven at t he hear i ng, we f i nd no suppor t f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    concl usi on. Bot h par t i es t est i f i ed t hat t hey execut ed t he

    Af f i davi t so Ol i ver o coul d t ake car e of LAD whi l e Dar n was away. 23

    I n l i ght of t he Af f i davi t ' s l anguage and t he par t i es' t est i mony as

    t o t hei r r easons f or i t s execut i on, t he Af f i davi t si mpl y cannot be

    r ead as a decl arat i on of acqui escence, much l ess uncondi t i onal

    acqui escence, t o t he r et ent i on of t he chi l d i n t he Uni t ed St at es.

    We emphasi ze, t he def ense of acqui escence cal l s f or def i ni t eness

    and cl ar i t y, i . e. , a "cl ear and unequi vocal expr essi on of an

    agr eement " or "a convi nci ng wr i t t en r enunci at i on of r i ght s. "

    Ni col son, 605 F. 3d at 108 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

    mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Baxt er , 423 F. 3d at 371. The Af f i davi t

    f al l s f ar short .

    23 Ol i ver o t est i f i ed: "[ The Af f i davi t ] was pr epar ed becauseI want ed t o have a document t hat I coul d use f or our chi l d' seducat i on, heal t h, t r avel , and ot her t hi ngs. " Dar n t est i f i ed t hathe si gned t he Af f i davi t so Ol i ver o coul d t ake car e of LAD whi l e hewas not wi t h t he chi l d, so she coul d t r avel wi t h hi s son t oAr gent i na af t er J ul y 2011, and t o make i t cl ear t hat he was notabandoni ng hi s chi l d.

    -32-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    33/41

    I t appear s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng may have been

    i nf l uenced by i t s bel i ef t hat t he par t i es had equal bar gai ni ng

    power at t he t i me the Af f i davi t was execut ed and t hat Dar n' s

    si gni ng was compl et el y vol unt ary and uncoerced. We cannot agr ee.

    The r ecor d - - i ncl udi ng, most i mpor t ant l y, t est i mony f r om bot h

    si des - - r ef l ect s t he opposi t e. The r eason Dar n si gned t he

    Af f i davi t was because he had t o. Dar n needed t o r etur n t o

    Ar gent i na: hi s t r avel vi sa was expi r i ng; he had no wor k vi sa; he

    had no j ob or i ncome i n Puert o Ri co; and the $1, 700 he and Ol i ver o

    had br ought t o Puer t o Ri co was depl et ed. I n f act , i t appear s

    Ol i ver o' s uncl e pur chased Dar n' s pl ane t i cket home f or hi m. The

    ci r cumst ances were agai nst Dar n. He was f aced wi t h t he choi ce of

    ei t her l eavi ng hi s son behi nd or r emai ni ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es

    i l l egal l y, wi t hout a wor k per mi t and wi t hout l egal r epr esent at i on.

    Had Dar n opt ed t o over st ay hi s vi sa, he coul d have been subj ect t o

    arr est and r emoval pr oceedi ngs, whi ch woul d have l i kewi se separated

    hi m f r om hi s son. We woul d har dl y cal l Dar n' s si gni ng of t he

    Af f i davi t under t hese ci r cumst ances vol unt ar y or uncoer ced. I f

    anyt hi ng, Dar n' s si t uat i on i s a l esson i n dur ess.

    Mor eover , t he Af f i davi t does not suppor t t he di st r i ct

    cour t ' s al t er nat i ve f i ndi ng t hat i t f unct i oned as a r enunci at i on of

    r i ght s under t he Convent i on. The di st r i ct cour t at t empt s t o

    suppor t t hi s concl usi on by ci t i ng t o J our ne v. J our ne, 911 F. Supp.

    43, 47- 48 ( D. P. R. 1995) , a di st r i ct cour t case t hat i s not

    -33-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    34/41

    appl i cabl e t o t he pr esent set of f act s. J our ne addr essed a

    si t uat i on wher e a f at her vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed a cust ody act i on he

    had f i l ed i n hi s home count r y of France bef or e seeki ng r el i ef under

    t he Convent i on i n t he Uni t ed St at es. I d. at 48. The cour t

    ul t i mat el y concl uded t hat t he f at her had wai ved any r i ght s under

    t he Convent i on and I CARA by f oregoi ng the opport uni t y t o cont est

    cust ody i n t he French cour t s. I d.

    The di st r i ct cour t ' s r el i ance on J ourne i s mi spl aced: a

    f at her ' s vol unt ar y di smi ssal of a cust ody act i on i nst i t ut ed by hi m

    i n hi s own count r y i s wor l ds away f r oma f ather si gni ng a document ,

    dr af t ed by t he mot her i n her count r y, t o pr ovi de f or t he educat i on

    and heal t h car e of hi s son due t o t he f act t hat he i s f or ced t o

    r et ur n t o hi s home count r y and l eave t hat chi l d behi nd. Unl i ke t he

    si t uat i on i n J our ne, Dar n never had an oppor t uni t y t o asser t hi s

    par ent al r i ght s i n f r ont of a magi st r at e. He even t est i f i ed t hat

    when he sought hel p wi t h hi s si t uat i on f r om t he Ar gent i ne

    consul ate, he f ound out he woul d not be abl e t o get f r ee l egal

    r epr esent at i on because he was not an Amer i can ci t i zen. I n sum, t he

    Af f i davi t pr ovi des no suppor t f or Ol i ver o' s acqui escence def ense.

    We pr oceed t o her ot her ar gument s.

    Next , Ol i ver o cont ends t hat Dar n' s acqui escence can be

    i nf er r ed f r om some of hi s act i ons af t er he l ef t Puer t o Ri co. She

    f i r st di r ect s our at t ent i on t o Dar n' s f i l i ng of t he i nst ant

    pet i t i on f or r et ur n i n December 2011 - - a poi nt t he di st r i ct cour t

    -34-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    35/41

    al so f ound si gni f i cant . Ol i ver o says t hi s "del ay" i n f i l i ng i s

    i nconsi st ent wi t h Dar n opposi ng LAD' s r el ocat i on t o t he Uni t ed

    St ates. We are not convi nced. That Dar n t ook around f i ve mont hs

    t o f i l e t he pet i t i on af t er he was back i n Ar gent i na i s not enough

    t o const i t ut e acqui escence. 24

    Fi rs t of f , t he f act t hat Dar n of f i ci al l y f i l ed on

    December 19, 2011 does not mean he deci ded t o pursue l egal act i on

    on t hat day. He must , i t st ands t o r eason, have had t o i nqui r e and

    t aken some st eps pr i or t o t he act ual physi cal f i l i ng of hi s

    pet i t i on wi t h t he Ar gent i na Cent r al Aut hor i t y. And, i n f act , t he

    r ecor d shows Dar n was l ooki ng at al t er nat i ves whi l e i n Ar gent i na

    bef or e r esor t i ng t o t he r emedy pr ovi ded by t he Convent i on. Dar n

    t est i f i ed he was maki ng t he necessary i nqui r i es dur i ng t hat t i me

    and was hol di ng out hope t hat Ol i vero woul d come ar ound. 25 He al so

    t est i f i ed t hat he wai t ed t o f i l e t he pet i t i on because Ol i ver o was

    t el l i ng hi m "t hat she needed t o t hi nk and t hat she was goi ng t o go

    back [ t o Ar gent i na] . " 26 I t i s not unr easonabl e f or Dar n t o hope

    24 I t i s undi sput ed t hat Dar n ar r i ved i n Ar gent i na on J ul y 10,2011 and f i l ed t he pet i t i on f or r etur n on December 19, 2011.

    25 "I knew ever ythi ng t hat t hi s woul d ent ai l at t hat t i me t hatI was over t her e and I ' m maki ng my i nqui r i es. And I l ear ned t hat ,unf or t unat el y, wi t h t hi s, [ LAD] i s goi ng t o l ose i n any way. And,

    al so, because I had t he hope t hat [ Ol i ver o] woul d r eal i ze that whatshe di d was wr ong. "

    26 " [ A] nd, i n addi t i on t o t hat , she tol d me that she neededt i me to thi nk, t hat [ LAD] was goi ng t o come back wi t h me - - andt hose were her words, t hose were her si st er ' s words, and t hose wereher mother ' s words. "

    -35-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    36/41

    Ol i ver o woul d change her mi nd and retur n to Ar gent i na wi t h the

    chi l d. Af t er al l , she had done t hi s bef or e i n Mar ch of 2010, and

    some of her t r i ps t o Puert o Ri co had l ast ed mont hs, yet she al ways

    went back t o Ar gent i na i n t he end. Addi t i onal l y, accor di ng t o t he

    l et t er dat ed December 23, 2011 f r omt he Ar gent i na Cent r al Aut hor i t y

    t o t he U. S. Depar t ment of St at e' s Of f i ce of Chi l dr en' s I ssues,

    Dar n had been t r yi ng t o convi nce Ol i ver o to ret ur n t o Ar gent i na

    wi t h LAD si nce hi s own r et ur n t her e. The f act t hat t he Ar gent i na

    Cent r al Aut hor i t y r ecogni zed Dar n' s ef f or t s dur i ng t hi s per i od i n

    of f i ci al document at i on does not wei gh l i ght l y on us.

    Fur t her mor e, t he Convent i on i t sel f al l ows f or a pet i t i on

    t o be f i l ed up t o a year af t er t he wr ongf ul r et ent i on. See

    Convent i on, supr a Ar t i cl e 12 at 1502. And even when a pet i t i on i s

    f i l ed af t er t he one year per i od, t her e ar e i nst ances wher e a

    f eder al cour t may st i l l or der a chi l d' s ret ur n. See Yaman v.

    Yaman, 730 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( f i ndi ng Ar t i cl e 12' s one-

    year per i od di d not oper at e as a st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons) . To say

    t hat Dar n acqui esced because he f i l ed wi t hi n t he t i me pr escr i bed

    by t he Convent i on i s i r r at i onal . I t woul d r ender t he Convent i on' s

    one year pr ovi si on poi nt l ess. As i t st ands, Dar n had a f ul l year

    t o f i l e hi s pet i t i on, and he di d f i l e wi t hi n t hat year . I n t hi s

    par t i cul ar i nst ance, t he passage of t i me bet ween Dar n' s depar t ur e

    f r om t he Uni t ed St at es and hi s f i l i ng of a t i mel y pet i t i on f or

    r et ur n i s not pr obat i ve of acqui escence.

    -36-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    37/41

    Ol i ver o makes a r el at ed ar gument t hat Dar n onl y f i l ed

    because LAD woul d not be goi ng to Ar gent i na f or Chr i st mas and

    because she had f i l ed f or cust ody. But t hi s ar gument act ual l y

    st r engt hens Dar n' s posi t i on t hat he di d not acqui esce t o hi s son

    r emai ni ng i n t he Uni t ed St ates. Assumi ng Dar n was on not i ce of

    Ol i ver o' s f i l i ng f or cust ody i n Puer t o Ri co, i t i s not unr easonabl e

    t o t hi nk t hat t hi s caused hi m t o bel i eve t hat her expr essed

    i nt ent i ons of st ayi ng on t he i sl and per manent l y, whi ch i n t he past

    had pr oved i l l usor y, wer e real t hi s t i me, pr ompt i ng hi m t o pur sue

    a l egal cour se of act i on hi msel f .

    Ol i ver o get s no mor e t r act i on wi t h her cl ai mt hat Dar n' s

    acqui escence i s evi denced by hi s r egul ar communi cat i ons wi t h t hei r

    son and t hei r son' s school , as wel l as t he f act t hat Dar n sent LAD

    a care package wi t h school cl othes and t oys. These t hi ngs do

    not hi ng more t han show Dar n' s i nt ent i on t o be i nvol ved i n hi s

    chi l d' s l i f e, whi ch we not e i s consi st ent wi t h hi s st at ement i n t he

    Af f i davi t t hat he was not abandoni ng hi s son.

    Ol i ver o bor e t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he af f i r mat i ve

    def ense of acqui escence by a preponderance of t he evi dence. Havi ng

    car ef ul l y r evi ewed t he ent i r e r ecor d, we concl ude t hat t her e i s no

    evi dence f r omwhi ch a reasonabl e f act f i nder coul d pl ausi bl y i nf er

    Dar n acqui esced t o hi s son r emai ni ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Qui t e

    t o t he cont r ary, t he r ecor d shows Dar n' s posi t i on has r emai ned t he

    same si nce bei ng i nf or med of Ol i ver o' s i nt ent i ons t o st ay i n t he

    -37-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    38/41

    Uni t ed St at es i n mi d- Mar ch 2011: hi s son shoul d r et ur n t o

    Ar gent i na. Ol i ver o has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t he af f i r mat i ve def ense

    of acqui escence.

    VIII. LEGAL COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND TRAVEL EXPENSES

    As a f i nal mat t er , Dar n seeks payment of hi s l egal

    cost s, at t or ney' s f ees and t r avel expenses pur suant t o Ar t i cl e 26

    of t he Convent i on and 42 U. S. C. 11607. An award of necessary

    expenses - - i ncl udi ng l egal f ees and cost s, as wel l as

    t r anspor t at i on expenses r el at ed t o t he r et ur n of a chi l d - - i s

    appr opr i at e when a cour t or der s t he r et ur n of a chi l d. 42 U. S. C.

    11607( b) ( 3) . Never t hel ess, t he r espondent i n a r et ur n act i on has

    t he oppor t uni t y t o show why an award of necessar y expenses t o a

    pr evai l i ng pet i t i oner woul d be cl ear l y i nappr opr i at e. I d. ( "Any

    cour t or der i ng t he ret ur n of a chi l d pur suant t o an act i on br ought

    under sect i on 11603 of t hi s t i t l e shal l or der t he r espondent t o pay

    necessary expenses i ncur r ed by or on behal f of t he pet i t i oner . .

    . unl ess t he r espondent est abl i shes t hat such or der woul d be

    cl ear l y i nappr opr i at e. ") ; see al so Whal l on, 356 F. 3d at 140

    ( f i ndi ng t he respondent has t he bur den t o est abl i sh t hat a f ee or

    expense or der woul d be cl ear l y i nappr opr i at e) .

    The di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess t hi s mat t er , gi ven i t s

    f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no wr ongf ul r et ent i on. Accor di ngl y, t he

    i ssue of whet her Dar n i s ent i t l ed t o cour t cost s, at t or ney' s f ees

    and t r anspor t at i on expenses, and i f so, t he amount t o be awarded,

    -38-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    39/41

    i s r emanded t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or consi der at i on and

    di sposi t i on.

    IX. CONCLUSION

    The di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n concl udi ng t here was no

    wr ongf ul r et ent i on i n t hi s case. Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he

    ent i r e r ecor d t o pl ausi bl y suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng

    t hat t he par t i es ar r i ved at a mut ual i nt ent t o change LAD' s

    habi t ual r esi dence f r omAr gent i na t o t he Uni t ed St at es. The r ecor d

    i s al so devoi d of any obj ect i ve f act s showi ng a change i n habi t ual

    r esi dence. Ar gent i na was LAD' s habi t ual r esi dence i n mi d- Mar ch

    2011. Because Dar n had cust ody r i ght s over LAD and was exer ci si ng

    t hose r i ght s at t he t i me of t he r et ent i on, i t f ol l ows t hat Dar n

    has est abl i shed wr ongf ul r et ent i on by a pr eponder ance of t he

    evi dence. Because Ol i ver o di d not i nt r oduce suf f i ci ent evi dence t o

    est abl i sh Dar n' s consent or acqui escence t o t hi s r et ent i on, we

    or der t he r et ur n of LAD t o Ar gent i na. Any f ur t her cust ody

    pr oceedi ngs must t ake pl ace i n the Ar gent i ne cour t s.

    We do not make t hi s deci si on l i ght l y, especi al l y because

    t here i s a young boy i nvol ved. Ol i ver o' s ar gument t hat LAD had

    al r eady accl i mat i zed t o Puer t o Ri co when Dar n f i l ed hi s r et ur n

    pet i t i on - - he had f i ni shed summer camp, concl uded hi s f i r st

    semest er of school and had devel oped st r ong t i es wi t h hi s maternal

    -39-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    40/41

    f ami l y - - i s ext r aneous t o our anal ysi s. 27 We r ecogni ze t hat t he

    chi l d has been l i vi ng i n Puer t o Ri co f or t hr ee year s now. However ,

    r et ai ni ng t he chi l d i n t he Uni t ed St at es agai nst hi s f at her ' s

    wi shes was a deci si on Ol i ver o made on her own. I f we al l ow a

    par ent t o uni l at er al l y change a chi l d' s habi t ual r esi dence si mpl y

    due t o t he passage of t i me, we woul d be encour agi ng t he pur sui t of

    t hi s i l l egal r out e t o cust ody. To not order t he chi l d' s r et ur n

    woul d be t o condone that whi ch t he Convent i on seeks t o det er :

    par ent s cr ossi ng i nt er nat i onal boundar i es wi t h t hei r chi l dr en i n

    or der t o avoi d t he j ur i sdi ct i on of l ocal cour t s whose r ul i ngs t hey

    do not - - or bel i eve t hey wi l l not - - agr ee wi t h. See Sheal y v.

    Sheal y, 295 F. 3d 1117, 1121 ( 10t h Ci r . 2002) .

    To be cl ear , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat " t he

    Puer t o Ri co cour t s have j ur i sdi ct i on t o det er mi ne per manent l y t he

    best i nt er est s of t he chi l d and t o r ul e on any cont r over si es

    bet ween t he par t i es r egar di ng par ent al cust ody and vi si t at i on

    r i ght s" cannot st and. Our deci si on t oday voi ds t hi s det er mi nat i on.

    I t i s t he Ar gent i ne cour t s t hat have j ur i sdi ct i on. Ther e i s no

    r eason t o bel i eve an Ar gent i ne cour t wi l l not make a cust ody

    27 The so- cal l ed "now- set t l ed" except i on t o t he Convent i on' sr equi r ement t hat a wr ongf ul l y ret ai ned chi l d be r et ur ned t o t he

    pl ace of habi t ual r esi dence appl i es i n cases wher e t he pet i t i on hasbeen f i l ed mor e t han a year f ol l owi ng t he unl awf ul r et ent i on. SeeYaman, 730 F. 3d at 4 ( " [ Ar t i cl e 12' s] one- year per i od . . . mustel apse bef or e a par ent can asser t t he ' now set t l ed' def ense. ") .Thi s i s cl ear l y not t he si t uat i on at bar , where t here i s no i ssueas t o t he pet i t i on bei ng f i l ed wi t hi n a year of t he wr ongf ulr et ent i on.

    -40-

  • 7/26/2019 Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 1st Cir. (2014)

    41/41

    determi nat i on i n a r esponsi bl e manner . See Abbot t , 560 U. S. at 20.

    For t he reasons st ated above, we REVERSE t he di st r i ct

    cour t ' s August 16, 2012 order , and ORDER t he ret ur n of LAD t o

    Ar gent i na. We r ei t er at e t hat wi t h t hi s det er mi nat i on we ar e not

    r esol vi ng t he under l yi ng i ssue of chi l d cust ody. Ol i ver o may

    ul t i mat el y pr evai l i n her quest t o obt ai n f ul l cust ody of LAD, but

    t hi s i s a det er mi nat i on f or t he Ar gent i ne cour t s t o make.

    The i ssue of cour t cost s, l egal f ees and t r anspor t at i on

    expenses i s REMANDED t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or a det er mi nat i on

    consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.