Case Law Search

The mother was born in Germany and held dual German and US citizenship. She spent much of her childhood traveling back and forth between Hawai’i and Germany. The father was a US citizen, born and raised in Hawai’i. 

The parents met during high school in Hawai’i and began a relationship in 2014. In 2018, they relocated to Germany and less than a year later the father returned to Hawai’i. In 2019 the mother travelled to Hawai’i to spend time with the father and found out she was pregnant. She wanted the baby to be born in Germany but her doctor advised her not to travel during the first trimester of her pregnancy. They remained in Hawai’i and the child was born there in October 2020. The child had dual German and US citizenship. 

In March 2021, the family travelled to Germany. They registered as living there but shortly after went to Italy, where the mother’s family had a holiday home and where the COVID-19 conditions felt safer. 

The parents separated in May 2021. They applied to the German court to transfer sole custody of the child to the mother but were unable to do so as the parents were living at the same address. They instead signed a document delegating decision-making regarding the child to the mother. The father returned to Hawai’i and had video contact with the child. 

Between February and June 2022 the mother and child travelled to Moʻorea in French Polynesia, they then returned to Hawai’i and lived there between June 2022 and February 2025. The parents did not restart their relationship but the mother wanted the father to be part of the child’s life. The mother enrolled the child in school and she attended regularly.

In 2024 the mother met a new partner and learned she was pregnant in October 2024. 

In February 2025 the parents had a significant disagreement. The mother took the child to Germany, without the knowledge of the father, in order to resolve the custody dispute there. The father did not agree to sign over custody rights and filed an application for return in the German District Court, which was refused. 

The child remained in Germany between February 2025 and November 2025. The mother then returned to Hawai’i and the father began custody proceedings in the Hawai’ian court. 

The mother filed an application for return to Germany under the 1980 Hague Convention. She identified 2 December 2025 (the date on which she learned that the father had continued the Hawaiʻi proceedings and was served with papers) as the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

Return refused. The child was not habitually resident in Germany. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The child had spent much of her life moving and had meaningful ties to more than one place. 

The mother argued that Germany was the child’s place of habitual residence and that her time in Hawai’i was temporary. At five years old the child was no longer an infant and was capable of acclimatising to her surroundings. For three years she had lived primarily in Hawai’i, built relationships and attended school. Her eight-month stay in Germany failed to reflect the same level of continuity. The child and her mother moved many times in that period and were not sufficiently integrated into the social environment for it to be her habitual residence. 

Furthermore, the mother’s new partner was based in Hawai’i and so it was unlikely that the child’s stepsiblings would grow up in Germany. The mother had no realistic plan for staying in Germany and the fact that she considered Germany as her home was distinct from having established her child there within the meaning of the Convention. 

Even when a child has spent meaningful time in a particular place, that place may not qualify as her habitual residence if there is another place to which the child has a strong attachment. The court found that the child's attachments in Hawai'i were stronger and more enduring than they were in Germany.