Mozes v. Mozes
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
239 F.3d 1067 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Israeli citizens Arnon Mozes (plaintiff) and Michal Mozes (defendant) were a married couple with four children ranging in age from seven to 16 years old. With Arnon’s consent, Michal and the children moved to Los Angeles, California, to take advantage of the education system, learn to speak English, and profit from American culture. Arnon remained in Israel but visited Michal and the children frequently. Although the Mozeses agreed that the stay in California would be for at least 15 months, Arnon filed a petition in California after one year against Michal for divorce and custody of the children. The trial court granted temporary custody of the children to Michal and entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting Arnon from removing the children from California. Arnon then filed a petition in federal district court, seeking removal of the children to Israel pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention). Subsequently, the oldest child elected to voluntarily return to Israel with the consent of both parents. The district court denied Arnon’s petition with respect to the remaining three children, concluding that the children were habitual residents of the United States. Arnon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 826,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 991 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.