Pitz v. Gonzalez

Background

Christopher Pitz and Inessa Gonzalez married in 2018. Their two children, A.D.P. and A.R.P., were born in Florida in 2020 and 2021. The family moved from Florida to Berlin, Germany, on April 17, 2024, using one-way tickets. They obtained long-term visas, registered the children for residency status, moved their household belongings to Germany, and enrolled the children in preschool. The children also received medical care and participated in other activities there.

The parties disputed why they moved to Germany and how well the children adjusted. Pitz presented evidence of planning for a long-term move, including property purchases, school research, and immigration arrangements. Gonzalez presented evidence that the move may have been intended as a trial period and that she and the children retained important connections to the United States. The parties also disagreed about whether the children learned German, made friends, and became integrated into life in Germany.

In March 2025, Gonzalez traveled with the children to California without telling Pitz in advance. Pitz then brought this case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, seeking the children’s return to Germany.

Legal framework

The Hague Convention generally requires a child wrongfully removed from the child’s habitual residence to be returned to that country. The return process is provisional: it determines where custody proceedings should occur, rather than deciding permanent custody. Under the federal law implementing the Convention, Pitz had to prove that the children were under 16, were removed from their habitual residence in a participating foreign country, that he had custody rights when they were removed, and that he was exercising those rights or would have exercised them but for the removal.

The court explained that habitual residence depends on the totality of the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the children’s experience and connections in the country, their routines and social environment, their immigration status, school and other activities, and the intentions and circumstances of their caregiving parents. No single fact controls, and shared parental agreement to remain in a country is not always required.

At the summary-judgment stage, the court could grant judgment only if there was no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court had to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing each motion and could not decide witness credibility or weigh conflicting evidence.

Habitual residence

The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on whether the children were habitual residents of Germany when Gonzalez brought them to California. Viewing the evidence in Pitz’s favor, the court identified evidence that the family intended to live in Germany, made long-term plans for the children’s education there, moved their belongings, obtained long-term visas, and developed local financial and community ties. The court also noted evidence that the children participated in activities, made friends at preschool, and progressed in German. From that perspective, a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the children were habitual residents of Germany.

Viewing the evidence in Gonzalez’s favor, the court identified evidence that the move may have been intended as a trial period, that Gonzalez had not committed to remaining in Germany, and that Pitz retained significant ties to the United States. The court also considered evidence that the children did not learn German, make close friends, or develop meaningful connections with extended family in Germany, and that Gonzalez returned with them to the United States after the marriage deteriorated. From that perspective, a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the children had not adjusted sufficiently to Germany to establish habitual residence there.

Because the outcome depended on which evidence was most persuasive and how the parties’ credibility was assessed, the court held that the habitual-residence question had to be resolved at trial. The court also declined to resolve, at this stage, the parties’ dispute about whether German court decisions concerning the children could be considered.

Custody rights under German law

The court granted Pitz’s motion for summary adjudication on the issue of custody rights under German law. The parties were married when both children were born and remained married when Gonzalez removed the children from Germany. The court concluded that, under German law, married parents have joint custody from the child’s birth unless that custody is ended by operation of law or a court order. Gonzalez offered no contrary legal authority.

The court also granted summary adjudication that Pitz was exercising those custody rights when the children were removed. The undisputed record showed that Pitz, Gonzalez, and the children were living together as a family before the removal. The court stated that a person with valid custody rights generally cannot be considered not to have exercised them absent clear and unequivocal abandonment, and the record did not show such abandonment.

Disposition

The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on whether the children were habitual residents of Germany. It granted Pitz’s motion as to the determination that, if the children were habitual residents of Germany, Pitz had custody rights under German law and was exercising those rights when Gonzalez removed the children. The habitual-residence issue remains for trial.