Monasky v. Taglieri

589 U.S. 68, 140 S.Ct. 719, 206 L.Ed.2d 9 (2020)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Monasky v. Taglieri

United States Supreme Court
589 U.S. 68, 140 S.Ct. 719, 206 L.Ed.2d 9 (2020)

Facts

Michelle Monasky (defendant) and Domenico Taglieri (plaintiff) were married in the United States in 2011 and moved to Italy. The marriage began deteriorating because Taglieri allegedly because physically abusive. In 2014, Monasky became pregnant, but the couple began living separately after Taglieri found work in Lugo, three hours away from the couple’s home in Milan. Monasky considered divorcing Taglieri and returning to the United States, while simultaneously preparing with Taglieri to care for the expected child in Italy by purchasing baby items, researching childcare, and finding a larger apartment. After the couple’s daughter, AMT, was born in February 2015, Monasky told Taglieri that she wanted to divorce him and return to the United States. However, Monasky and AMT subsequently joined Taglieri in Lugo. In March 2015, after an argument with Taglieri, Monasky sought police assistance and fled with AMT to a safe house. Monasky alleged that Taglieri had abused her and that she feared for her life. In April 2015, Monasky took AMT to Ohio, where they moved in with Monasky’s parents. Taglieri obtained a declaration from an Italian court terminating Monasky’s parental rights. Taglieri then brought an action in an Ohio federal district court seeking AMT’s return to Italy under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), which provides that a child wrongfully removed from her country of “habitual residence” must be returned to that country. Monasky asserted that Italy was not AMT’s habitual residence because she and Taglieri had never actually agreed to raise AMT in Italy. However, following a four-day bench trial, the district court ordered that AMT be returned to Italy, finding that Monasky and Taglieri had had a shared intention for their child to live in Italy and no definitive plan to return to the United States. AMT was returned to Italy, and the appellate court subsequently affirmed the district court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard for determining habitual residence and the standard of appellate review for habitual-residence determinations. By the time of the Court’s decision, AMT was five years old.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)

Concurrence (Alito, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership