Pitz v. Gonzalez

Background

This case concerns the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. Christopher Pitz asked the court to return the children to Germany after Inessa Gonzalez took them to California on March 24, 2025. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The family moved from Florida to Berlin in April 2024. The record included evidence about German housing, visas, school and preschool arrangements, medical care, activities, language learning, family relationships, financial ties, and the parties’ differing views about whether the move was intended to be permanent or a trial period. The parties also disputed the children’s adjustment to Germany and the circumstances leading Gonzalez to return with them to California.

Legal standard and habitual residence

Under the Hague Convention, a child generally must be returned to the country where the child was habitually resident if the child was wrongfully removed. Pitz had to show, among other things, that the children were removed from their habitual residence, that he had custody rights under the law of that country, 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 can include the children’s physical presence, adjustment to their surroundings, routines, social and family connections, activities, immigration status, personal belongings, and the intentions and circumstances of caregiving parents. No single fact is controlling, and shared parental agreement to remain in a country is not always required.

The court held that the habitual-residence question could not be resolved on summary judgment. Viewing the evidence in Gonzalez’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the children had become at home in Berlin because the family had made housing and education plans, obtained long-term visas, moved belongings there, and the children participated in activities and adapted to Germany. Viewing the evidence in Pitz’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could instead conclude that the children had not sufficiently adjusted to Germany because the move may have been intended as a trial, Gonzalez did not commit to staying, the children allegedly did not learn German or form close friendships, and they remained connected to the United States.

Because resolving the issue could require assessing credibility and weighing the overall evidence, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on whether Germany was the children’s habitual residence. The court stated that the issue would be resolved at trial. It also declined to decide whether German court decisions offered by Pitz could be considered, explaining that those decisions would not change the summary-judgment ruling.

Custody rights under German law

The court separately considered Pitz’s request for summary adjudication that he had and was exercising custody rights under German law. Gonzalez’s counsel conceded that she did not contest Pitz’s right to custody or his exercise of custody for purposes of the Hague Convention, while arguing that the court should not make a finding under German law.

The court granted Pitz’s motion on this issue. It found that the parties were married when the children were born and remained married when the children were removed. Based on the German law discussed in the order, married parents have joint custody unless that custody is ended by operation of law or a court order. The court found no contrary authority from Gonzalez and concluded that Pitz held custody rights under German law when the children were removed.

The court also found that the undisputed record showed Pitz and the children were living together as a family before the removal. Applying the cited Hague Convention authority, the court concluded that Pitz was exercising his custody rights and had not clearly abandoned the children.

Disposition

Both parties’ motions for summary judgment were denied on whether the children were habitual residents of Germany when Gonzalez moved them to California in March 2025. Pitz’s motion was granted as to the conditional determination that, if the children were habitual residents of Germany, he had custody rights under German law and was exercising those rights when they were removed.