In Antunez-Fernandes v. Connors-Fernandes, 259 F.Supp.2d 800 (N.D.Iowa 2003), the court held that inquiry into "habitual residence" focuses not upon the child's domicile, or legal residence, but where the child physically lived for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has degree of settled purpose from the child's perspective.

The children's "habitual residence" was in France. The children had lived their entire life in France prior to their removal, they were born in France, and they had attended school in France.

The father had "rights of custody" under French law, which was the law of the children's habitual residence at time of their removal. French law mandated that children were subject to joint parental authority. French law prohibited a minor child from leaving home or being taken away from it without permission of a parent, and French law granted no privilege of custody to either parent.

Although the mother had obtained an "ordinance" from French court giving her permission to move from the marital home with the children to a nearby friend's home, the ordinance did not give her custody or permission to leave France with the children, and the ordinance did not impair the father's right to custody or right to exercise custody.

Efforts toward reconciliation or visitation with children, who have been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence, do not constitute consent to removal.

The father, who prevailed on his wrongful removal claim was entitled to recover his travel expenses, including those incurred for plane ticket, car rental, and hotel.