About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (2019)

handle is hein.congcourts/fjcwatts0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Commentary: Appellate Court Cases Watts v. Watts, 935 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2019) - Habitual Residence I Parental Intent Other Tenth Circuit Cases Acclimatization I Time-Limited Takeshi Ogawa v. Kyong Kang, Relocations 946 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020) In this case, three children were temporarily re- West v. Dobrev, moved to Australia for the purpose of providing 735 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013) medical care to one of the children. The father ar- Leser v. Berridge, gued that this triggered a change in their habitual 668 F.3d 1202 (10dth Cir. 2011) residence. Navani v. Shahani, Hlig 496 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2007) Hlig de SilvaAv. Picis, The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's rul- 481 F.3d 1279 (10Oth Cir. 2007) ing on habitual residence, finding that the con- templated length of a temporary relocation is just Shealymv. Shealy, one of several factors to consider when determin- 295 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2002) ing whether the children have acquired a new ha- Ohiander v. Larson, bitual residence, and the length of time a child re- 114 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1997) mains in a new location is one of many factors to consider when determining whether a child has become acclimatized. Facts The mother and father were the married parents of three children. They established their home in North Carolina in 2006 and lived there until 2016. In 2016, the parents learned that their middle child needed specialized medical treatments. The father and children were dual citizens of Australia, and both the mother and father agreed to move to Aus- tralia to take advantage of Australia's universal health care system. The parents contem- plated that they would live in Australia until the completion of their son's medical treat- ment-a period of two to two-and-a-half years. In preparation for the move, the family rented out their home in North Carolina and moved into the mother's parents' home in Utah. While in Utah, the family visited various places in the western United States, po- tential future homes after their time in Australia. In September 2016, the family moved to Australia. They shipped much of their personal property to Australia but maintained ownership of their home in North Carolina. Other personal items were left in Utah, including sentimental items. The father maintained his company in the United States; most of its operations were in North America. The mother applied for and was granted a twelve-month visa to remain in Australia. The children were enrolled in Australian schools, and the family purchased a new home there. The father continued to travel overseas for work. The mother later applied for a permanent visa. Commentary-Case Name v. Case Name Page 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most