Respondent, Ms. Trusurta, requested a stay of the court’s order requiring the parties’ 7-year-old daughter be returned to Japan pending appeal and until she can secure immigration authorization and financial security in Japan so that she can also return. The court denied her request for a stay. The court concluded it was “extremely unlikely” that Ms. Tsuruta would succeed on the merits of her appeal, because “[t]his was not a close case.” The court noted that Respondent argued that the 2020 Supreme Court case of Monasky v. Taglieri, which addressed the term habitual residence under the Convention “overturned prior Eighth Circuit precedent and no matters involving child abduction claims arising under the Hague Convention have been addressed by the Eighth Circuit since. Therefore, this matter presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit.” The court acknowledged Monasky, indicated it “cited extensively” to Monasky in its opinion, and further stated that the Supreme Court also set forth that the review of a trial court’s habitual residence finding is reviewed under the “clear error” standard, which would make the likelihood of the Eighth Circuit overturning the district court’s finding that Japan was the child’s habitual residence very low.

The court did acknowledge that “moving to Japan with LT will be inconvenient and expensive for Respondent. … [b]ut Respondent does not explain how either the financial or logistical burdens, or the temporary separation from LT, will cause irreparable injury to Respondent.” The court expressed concern about the removal of the child from her primary caregiver mother, but made note that further delaying the child’s return would lengthen the child’s separation from her father and worsen the harm to the child. The court anticipated the appeal filed by Respondent would be unsuccessful, and that any separation between child and Respondent would be “short-lived.”