Wire
Five years in Canada means these children go home
The Fifth Circuit said school, daily life and relationships pointed to Canada, not Texas, as the children’s center of life. That finding triggered the treaty remedy and left White’s defenses behind.
Two children have to go back to Canada after the federal Fifth Circuit said their real home base was there, not in Texas. The court applied the Hague Convention, the international treaty used to sort cross-border custody fights, and sided with Sarah S.C. Moreau over Andrew Christopher White.
What mattered was not where White wanted the story to land, but where the children actually lived. After more than five years in Canada, where they went to school and built relationships, the judges said keeping them in Texas was wrongful under the treaty.
Why Canada counted
The panel treated day-to-day life as the key fact. The children had lived in Canada for over five years, attended school there and maintained relationships there, and that was enough for the court to call Canada their habitual residence.
That label carried the legal weight. Once the court found Canada was the place the children were rooted, White’s retention of them in Texas was no longer just a change of scenery. It breached Moreau’s Canadian custody rights and triggered the Hague Convention remedy.
The defenses that fell away
White tried to stop the return order by saying Moreau had consented, but the court rejected that argument. The judges also declined to use judicial estoppel to block the children’s return.
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment ordering the children back to Canada, while vacating the preliminary injunction tied to the case. The bottom line did not change: Texas could not become the new legal home simply because the children were kept there.
What this means for cross-border parents
For parents in international custody disputes, the ruling is a reminder that courts look hard at lived reality. Where children sleep, go to school and build relationships can decide where a case belongs, and once a court finds habitual residence, that finding can control the return fight.
This case shows how the Hague Convention works in practice. It does not settle every custody question, but it can quickly decide whether a child who has been moved or kept abroad has to be sent back to the country where life was centered.