DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner Arnaldur Schram, a citizen of Iceland, and Respondent Tania Zarak, a citizen of Mexico, met in the summer of 2013 in New York City. They were married about two years later. The couple had two children in New York. By 2017, the expense of living in the City, the small size of their apartment, their tenuous immigration status, and the distance from their families had taken a toll and they began looking elsewhere to settle down. Thus began a journey that saw the family relocate three times in three years as they searched for a city to put down roots and settle down permanently with their children. The last move, instigated in part by the Covid-19 pandemic, saw the family relocate to Petitioner’s home country of Iceland. After about a year in Iceland, Respondent traveled with two of their now three children to Mexico ostensibly for a family reunion, telling Petitioner and several friends that she planned to return to Iceland after the Mexico visit. Instead, Respondent removed the two children to New York and initiated divorce proceedings. BACKGROUND Petitioner, the children’s father, now petitions the Court, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980. Art. 13(b), T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, reprinted in 51 Fed. Reg., 10,494 (Mar. 26, 1986) (“Hague Convention”), implemented in the United States through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. §§9001 et seq. (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. §§11601 et seq.) (“ICARA”), seeking the return of his two children, E.Z. and S.Z., to Iceland. (Petition [ECF No. 1]). Petitioner alleges that the children, E.Z., now aged seven, and S.Z., now aged two, who are citizens of both the United States and Iceland, were wrongfully removed to the United States by their mother, Respondent, without Petitioner’s knowledge or consent on or about July 21, 2021. A. The Statutory Framework The Hague Convention was adopted in 1980 and provides…. The Convention was adopted “to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access.” Hague Convention pmbl. “The Convention’s drafters were particularly concerned by the practice in which a family member would remove a child to jurisdictions more favorable to his or her custody claims in order to obtain a right of custody from the authorities of the country to which the child had been taken.” Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “The Convention’s remedy of repatriation is designed to preserve the status quo in the child’s country of habitual residence and deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.” Souratgar v. Lee, 720 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). To that end, “[t]he Convention does not establish substantive standards for resolving the merits of any underlying custody dispute. Rather, the Convention’s focus is simply upon whether a child should be returned to her country of habitual residence for custody proceedings.” Mota, 692 F.3d at 112 (citation omitted). The Court notes that Petitioner has already commenced custody proceedings in Iceland. (Tr. at 416:10-14). To prevail on a claim under the Hague Convention, a petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the child was habitually resident in one State and has been removed to or retained in a different State;1 (2) the removal or retention was in breach of the petitioner’s custody rights under the law of the State of habitual residence; and (3) the petitioner was exercising those rights at the time of the removal or retention. Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2005). Respondent does not contest the second two elements here, (Tr. at 1161:12-25), and so the only issue before the Court is whether the children were habitual residents of Iceland at the time Respondent removed them to New York. B. Procedural History Petitioner filed this petition on August 2, 2021. (See Petition). On August 18, 2021, following an Order to Show Cause hearing, the Court set a schedule for expedited discovery, pre-hearing submissions, and an evidentiary hearing. [ECF No. 12]. Both parties submitted exhibit lists, witness lists, and pre-hearing memoranda. [ECF Nos. 19-27, 34-35, 37, 39-43]. Over the course of eight days in October 2021, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing.2 During the hearing, in addition to the parties’ testimony, the Court heard testimony from a total of five witnesses called by Petitioner, and four witnesses called by Respondent. Petitioner’s witnesses included several friends from Iceland: Phaedon Sinis, Waleska Giraldo Thorsteinsson, Halfdan Pedersen, Arni Bjorn Helgason; and an Icelandic Immigration lawyer, Inga Lilly Brynjolfsdottir. Respondent’s witnesses included two friends from New York: Marija Ratkovic, and Mandy Goldberg; the Parent Coordinator at the children’s former school in New York, Rita Yoskowitz; and an Icelandic Immigration and Asylum lawyer, Arndis Anna K. Gunnarsdottir. The Court also considered the joint stipulation of facts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, which consisted of over 100 exhibits, including, inter alia, text messages, emails, financial documents, and photographs. After the evidentiary hearing concluded, in lieu of closing arguments, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. [ECF Nos. 48, 49]. The Court observed the demeanor and testimony of the witnesses and has considered carefully the parties’ submissions and arguments as well as the entire evidentiary record. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), this Order constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court’s factual findings are based in part on the credibility determinations made during the hearing. To the extent any finding of fact includes conclusions of law, it is deemed a conclusion of law, and vice versa. For the following reasons, the petition is granted. I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background Petitioner is an Icelandic citizen who was born and raised in Iceland. (Joint Stipulation of Facts (Jt. Stip. Facts) [ECF No. 46]
4, 6). He attended university in the United States in 1999 and came to New York in 2007, (Tr. at 422:1-423:1), where he later attended Columbia University from 2009 to 2010, (Tr. at 427:2-5). Respondent is a Mexican citizen who was born and raised in Mexico. (Jt. Stip. Facts
