This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), according to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction is intended to protect children who have a country of habitual residence from wrongful removal.
According to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), according to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), in this case the child was taken to the United States at eight weeks old and the dispute has lasted more than four years, far exceeding the Convention’s goal of resolving cases within six weeks.
Background and question before the Court
The central legal question is whether the child has a habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Monasky)
According to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), according to Petitioner (Amir C. Tayrani), returning the child to Italy would be wrongful because the child has only ever known her mother as caregiver.
Respondent (Tagleri)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to United States (Amicus), according to United States (Amicus), the United States filed an amicus brief supporting neither party.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the child, taken to the United States at eight weeks old, has a habitual residence.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned why the case should be decided in the United States rather than elsewhere, given the child’s acclimation.
Chief Justice Roberts asked how old a child must be before a habitual residence can be found.
Justice Kagan asked why the Court should not simply accept the formulation of the legal standard offered by Judge Boggs.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh questioned whether “absent unusual circumstances” would be sufficient to resolve the case.
Justice Alito warned that a flexible “take everything into account” standard could give too much discretion to a single judge.
- [1] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 47
- [7] 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Petitioner counsel argues that the Convention’s protection may be eliminated for very young children because they may lack a habitual residence.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 653b5c6511e17f012322-r1-655cb3d39600e0fc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.