In Sasson v. Sasson, 327 F.Supp.2d 489 (D. New Jersey, 2004), the court found that Maya Sasson's habitual residence was the United States and denied Petitioner's Petition for the Return of Child.

Petitioner was an Israeli citizen domiciled in Israel and Respondent Sasson was an Israeli citizen living in New Jersey. They were married in 1995. Their daughter was born in 1996 in Israel. Petitioner had two sons from a former marriage.

Petitioner visited the United States with Respondent and his three children in December 1999. Petitioner thought the United States was a beautiful place to visit as a tourist. Respondent testified that her husband loved the United States from the minute he arrived here and that he told her he would figure out a way for them to move to the United States.

In August, 2000, Petitioner returned to the United States alone for business.

The parties marriage was unhappy. Petitioner contended that Respondent conditioned any efforts to salvage the marriage on going to the United States. Petitioner claims that because he had no other choice, he agreed to come to the United States for a "prolonged period of time" to try to rehabilitate his marriage.

Respondent denied placing any conditions on coming to the United States, and that Petitioner told her that he wanted to move to the United States because he believed that here, they would have a better life with less stress.

On October 8, 2002, the Sassons traveled from Israel to Florham Park, New Jersey on B-1 non-immigrant tourist visas that were to expire in April, 2003. Petitioner purchased round-trip plane tickets for that trip, to return to Israel on October 21, 2004. At the airport, Petitioner told the United States immigration officer that the purpose of his family's trip to the United States was to see relatives and to visit Disney World as a Bar Mitzvah gift for his son.

Prior to coming to the United States, Petitioner sold his house in Moshav Eshtaol, two cars, a majority of his home furnishings and furniture, as well as a portion of his business equipment. The Sassons moved out of the house sometime in August of 2002.

The Sassons moved into an apartment in Israel, where the Sassons lived in August and September, 2002 until they left for the United States in October 2002. Petitioner signed a one year lease for the apartment. He subsequently sublet the apartment.

Prior to leaving for the United States, in October, 2002, Petitioner had most of his wife's paintings (Respondent is an artist) shipped to the United States. Also, sometime in July of 2002, Petitioner retained an attorney in Florida, to file an L-1 business visa on his behalf, to apply for the "Immigration Lottery" on his behalf and on behalf of his wife, to prepare a work visa for his wife, to incorporate for him a company in the United States, and to help prepare a business plan.

The Sassons arrived in the United States with books, clothes, documents, money, and small business equipment that Petitioner needed to work. Petitioner obtained an Employer Identification Number for his company and also signed a one year lease for an apartment in Florham Park, New Jersey, beginning on October 1, 2002, opened a savings and checking bank account, purchased two vehicles, obtained car insurance through October 2003, purchased two cellular telephones, bought an American television, and arranged for cable television. Petitioner paid his bills and the rent by check. In January 2003, Petitioner also paid for a one-year membership in the Jewish Community Center.

Petitioner and Respondent enrolled the children in schools.  On April 3, 2003, Petitioner went back to Israel with his two sons, Ohad and Adi. Petitioner told his wife that he would return to the United States in three weeks. He informed her that when he came back from his business trip to Israel, due to the deterioration of their marriage, he would live. He stated that he intended to take all three of his children back to Israel and had taken Maya's passport with him. Petitioner admitted that he lied to Respondent and told her that he only planned to take his two sons. Petitioner ultimately decided not to take Maya with him to Israel because he concluded that his wife would scream and yell, making a scene, and that that would upset or traumatize Maya, which he wanted to avoid. Petitioner testified that he thought he would obtain custody of  Maya through the legal process.

The Third Circuit has defined A habitual residence", as the place where [the child] has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a "degree of settled purpose" from the child's perspective.... [A] determination of whether any particular place satisfies this standard must focus on the child and consists of an analysis of the child's circumstances in that place and the parents' present, shared intentions regarding their child's presence there. Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 *3d Cir., 1995).

Giving credence to Petitioner's story that he came to this country in an effort to salvage his marriage and that that was a condition imposed by Respondent, Petitioner's actions and his own testimony clearly portray an intent to settle in the United States.

The Court found that at the time the parties left Israel for the United States in October, 2002, they had a shared intent to settle in the United States.

Even if Petitioner and Respondent only intended to live in the United States for a "prolonged" but limited period of time while trying to resolve their marital problems, rather than permanently, that intent was still sufficient to establish a new habitual residence. All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.

Maya finished second grade and was residing in the United States for approximately twenty-two months, an amount of time that the Court found was sufficient for acclimatization and a "degree of settled purpose" from the child's perspective.

Go To Top of Page