Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Kumar v. Tusieseina et al, 2:2025cv00832 (D. Utah 2026)
INCADAT reference
HC/E/US 1745
Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States District Court for the District of Utah
First Instance
Howard C. Nielson, Jr., United States District Judge
States involved
SWEDEN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Decision
14 March 2026
Final
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
Return ordered
-
Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68, 71 (2020); Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 168 (2013); Takeshi Ogawa v. Kyong Kang, 946 F.3d 1176, 1178–79 (10th Cir. 2020)
-
SYNOPSIS
Synopsis available in
EN
1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – National of USA and Sweden – Married parents – Father national of Sweden – Mother national of USA – Joint custody – Child was born in USA and lived in Sweden between July 2023 and January 2025 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 3, the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the wrongful retention. Due to the child’s young age, the court considered both the intentions and circumstances of the parents and the facts indicating the child’s settlement.
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
Facts
The parents met in Dubai in 2021. The father was a Swedish citizen and the mother a United States citizen.
In September 2022 the mother gave birth in Utah. The child was a dual citizen of the United States and Sweden. At the time the father was living in Sweden but arrived approximately one day later and the family lived together in the US until the mother’s Swedish residence permit was approved.
The mother and child travelled regularly between Sweden and the US. In July 2023 they moved in with the father in his apartment in Stockholm. The child started attending preschool and spent time with her paternal grandparents. In June 2024 the parents married in Sweden and in November 2024 the mother applied for work there.
The parents agreed that the mother and child would travel to the US in January 2025 for a three-week trip. The mother did not return to Sweden as planned and in April 2025 the mother filed for divorce.
The father filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child.
The mother argued that Sweden was only a temporary living arrangement while the parents looked for employment in Dubai.
Ruling
Return ordered, the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time of the wrongful retention.
Grounds
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
The Court held that the child, at two years old, was too young to be capable of acclimatising to her surroundings and so considered both the intentions and circumstances of the parents and the facts indicating the child’s settlement. The Court held that the child was resident in Sweden at the time she left in January 2025. Despite the fact that the mother was the primary caregiver, her intention at the time was clearly to live together with the father in Sweden.
Though the parents had discussed settling in Dubai or the United States, these aspirations did not render the child's residence in Sweden to be “transitory”.