Case Explained: TOMMY GIGUERE v. STACY TARDIF

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order requiring the return of two young children to Canada under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The court held that the children’s country of habitual residence was Canada at the time of their wrongful retention in August 2024, and that none of the respondent’s asserted affirmative defenses applied. The court applied the “totality of the circumstances” test established by the Supreme Court in *Monasky v. Taglieri* to determine habitual residence, focusing on facts existing as of the date of wrongful retention. The analysis weighed shared parental intent, noting that while the mother intended to settle permanently in the United States, the father did not share this intent and viewed their move as a trial period. The court also considered the temporary nature of the family’s E-2 non-immigrant visas, the anchoring of their economic base in Canada, the maintenance of Canadian driver’s licenses, and the strength of the children’s community ties in Quebec compared to Massachusetts. Regarding affirmative defenses, the court found that the “now-settled” doctrine was unavailable because the petition was filed within one year of the retention. The court further rejected claims of consent and acquiescence, determining that the father’s participation in temporary state court custody arrangements did not constitute a clear and unequivocal agreement to let the Massachusetts court determine final custody or a waiver of his rights under the Convention, particularly given his simultaneous efforts to seek the children’s return to Canada and his limited access to them due to the mother’s control over their passports and residence. As a result of this ruling, the judgment ordering the immediate return of the children to Canada is upheld, and the respondent must comply with the district court’s order to restore the status quo prior to the wrongful retention. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.