Robert v. Tesson

507 F.3d 981 (2007)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Robert v. Tesson

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
507 F.3d 981 (2007)

  • Written by Elizabeth Yingling, JD

Facts

Ivan Robert (plaintiff) was a citizen of France when he met and married Gayle Tesson (defendant), a citizen of the United States. In 1997, Tesson gave birth to twin boys in Texas. The family lived in France at various times. The last trip to France occurred over three weeks in September and October 2003. The children had spent the prior 10 months in the United States and brought with them clothes for two seasons. The French home was unlivable. When Robert was away, Tesson returned to the United States with the children. Robert sought return of the children in a suit in Ohio federal district court under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, alleging Tesson violated the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention). The Hague Convention provided that the removal of a child from one nation to another was wrongful when the removal breached a person’s custodial rights under the law of the country in which the child was habitually resident. The Hague Convention was intended to prevent a child from being taken out of the family and social environment to which he had become accustomed. The district court denied Robert’s claim, finding that the children were not habitually resident in France. The district court relied on Mozes v. Mozes, which held that the subjective intentions of the parents were dispositive. The district court ignored prior Sixth Circuit precedent in Friedrich v. Friedrich, which required a court to focus on the past experiences of the child in determining habitual residence. The Third Circuit decision in Edward M. Feder v. Melissa Ann Evans-Feder was consistent with Friedrich and held that a child’s habitual residence was the place where the child was present long enough to allow acclimatization and that had a degree of settled purpose from the child’s perspective. Robert appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Clay, 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 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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 742,000 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
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 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