Milla Karkkainen v. Vladimir Ivanovich Kovalchuk Julie L. D'ItrI

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a habitual-residence stipulation was no No. 23-3407 19 longer binding because the child’s circumstances had changed since the agreement was made
• concluding that a habitual-residence stipulation was no No. 23-3407 19 longer binding because the child’s circumstances had changed since the agreement was made
• holding that even in cases involving older children, shared parental intent remains relevant to habitual residence and must be given some weight
• explaining that the date of wrongful retention begins when the child remains with the respondent against the petitioner's clearly communicated desire to have the child returned
• explaining that the date of wrongful retention begins when the child remains with the respondent against the petitioner's clearly communicated desire to have the child returned
• explaining that the date of wrongful retention begins when the child remains with the respondent against the petitioner’s clearly communicated desire to have the child returned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).