Mr. Dumitrascu filed a motion to stay the U.S. District Court’s order returning his minor child to Romania. You can review the court’s analysis when ordering the child returned here. Mr. Dumitrascu’s motion focuses on his argument that the United States, and not Romania, was the minor child’s habitual residence. He argued that the court gave too little weight to the parties’ last shared intent of where the child would reside. However, after Monasky v. Taglieri, the parents’ shared intent is only one of many factors a court will consider in resolving where the child was habitually resident, and it is not determinative. Mr. Dumitrascu cannot demonstrate that the district court judge committed clear error in finding the child’s habitual residence was Romania.

Mr. Dumitrascu also argues that he will suffer irreparable harm because he has to buy plane tickets for the child and an adult on short notice. However, he knew the child could be returned as early as July 2, 2021, when Mrs. Dumitrascu’s petition was filed, and with certainty on September 15, 2021, when the trial court rendered its return order. He also argues that he will suffer “extreme emotional harm” when he is separated from the child, and the child will suffer harm because he is her primary caretaker since birth. Unfortunately he made these arguments at trial. Mr. Dumitrascu is also a dual U.S.-Romanian national, and can travel to Romania to spend time with the child.

Mr. Dumitrascu also made the unpersuasive arguments that the child was doing well in Colorado, that he could facilitate virtual access with the mother in Romania, that it would stabilize the child to leave her in Colorado pending appeal, and that she is a young unvaccinated child who should not be placed on a transatlantic flight (even though he brought her to the U.S. during COVID).