UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW CHARLES NISBET, No. 23-3877 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 3:23-cv-00850-IM v. SPIRIT ROSE BRIDGER, OPINION

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 10, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed December 20, 2024

Before: Jay S. Bybee, Carlos T. Bea, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea; Dissent by Judge Bybee 2 NISBET V. BRIDGER

SUMMARY *

Hague Convention

The panel affirmed the district court’s order, after a bench trial, denying Andrew Nisbet’s petition for the return to Scotland of his two young children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Nisbet failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were habitual residents of Scotland when they left with their mother, Spirit Bridger, for the United States. Accordingly, under the standard set forth in Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020), Bridger did not wrongfully remove the children from their habitual residence under the Hague Convention. The panel held that the district court properly considered evidence that the children lacked a meaningful relationship with Nisbet, as well as the credible testimony of Bridger, the sole caregiving parent, that she never intended for Scotland to be more than a temporary location for herself and her children and that she lacked ties to Scotland. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the children lacked any habitual residence. In addition, the children’s mere physical presence in Scotland was not dispositive. Dissenting, Judge Bybee wrote that the relevant facts quickly and easily showed that the children habitually * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. NISBET V. BRIDGER 3

resided in Scotland. These relevant facts included evidence that Bridger had lived in Scotland for seven years, her children were British citizens and had lived in Scotland for all or most of their lives, Scotland was their father’s home and they lived in an apartment he owned and paid for, the children attended nursery school in Scotland and received medical and dental care there, and, only a year before she left Scotland, Bridger applied for her third long-term visa.

COUNSEL Rahgan N. Jensen (argued), Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; Julia E. Markley, Perkins Coie LLP, Portland, Oregon; Jeremy D. Morley, The Law Office of Jeremy D. Morley, New York, New York; for Petitioner-Appellant. Katrina A. Seipel (argued) and Katelyn D. Skinner, Buckley Law PC, Lake Oswego, Oregon, for Respondent-Appellee. 4 NISBET V. BRIDGER

OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge:

Andrew Nisbet—who stabbed his mother in the throat killing her, pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on diminished responsibility, and was sentenced to indefinite psychiatric confinement in England—appeals the district court’s order that denied his petition under the Hague Convention for return to Scotland of his two young children, 1 ACN (born in February 2018) and KRN (born in February 2020). 2 ACN and KRN were brought to the United States from Scotland by their mother, Spirit Bridger, in June 2022. T