Monasky v. Taglieri

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Family Law

Reporter Citation Pending

Updated August 1, 2026

Family LawHague Conventionhabitual residenceinternational child abductiontotality of the circumstancesactual agreement not requiredinfantsclear error review

Facts

Monasky and Taglieri married in the United States and later relocated to Italy, where both worked and had no definitive plan to return to the United States. Their marriage deteriorated, and while Monasky explored returning to the United States during her pregnancy, the couple also prepared to care for their child in Italy by arranging childcare, buying baby items, and finding a larger apartment there. Their daughter, A. M. T., was born in Italy in February 2015, and after further conflict Monasky fled with the two-month-old child to Ohio. Taglieri then sought the child's return to Italy on the ground that Italy was her habitual residence.

Issue

Whether an infant can have a habitual residence under the Hague Convention absent an actual agreement between the parents about where to raise the child, and what standard of appellate review applies to a trial court's habitual-residence determination. Also, whether the judgment should be remanded so the lower courts could apply the proper totality-of-the-circumstances standard in the first instance.

Rule

A child's habitual residence under the Hague Convention depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents. For infants, parental intentions and caregiving circumstances are relevant, but no single fact is dispositive. A trial court's habitual-residence determination, once the correct legal standard is identified, is reviewed on appeal only for clear error.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Leila Shah and Owen Mercer married in Oregon and then moved to Lisbon, where both accepted multiyear jobs, leased an apartment, and arranged pediatric care before their child was born. Six weeks after the birth, Leila took the infant to Seattle and argues the child had no habitual residence because she and Owen never expressly agreed where the baby would be raised.

Under the governing standard, which is the best analysis of the infant’s habitual residence?

Explanation. Habitual residence turns on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on a categorical actual-agreement requirement. For infants, parental intentions and caregiving circumstances are relevant, but no single fact is dispositive. The key question is where the child was at home, and lack of express agreement does not prevent an infant from having a habitual residence. (Derived from Monasky v. Taglieri (n.d.).)