The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's denial of an international child return petition filed under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, according to a decision filed Jan. 23, 2026.
In *Lucas Alzu v. Amy Nichole Huff* (8th Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri's denial of Lucas Alzu's petition seeking the return of his child under the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq.
Alzu, an Argentine citizen, alleged that Amy Nichole Huff, the child's mother, wrongfully removed the child from Argentina, which he claimed was the child's country of habitual residence. The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Benton, Grasz, and Stras, issued the unanimous decision with Judge Benton writing the opinion.
The case centers on an international custody dispute involving two parents who met in unusual circumstances. Alzu, born in Argentina but who had not lived there full-time since 2007, traveled extensively before meeting Huff at a Rainbow Gathering in Colombia in December 2018. Rainbow Gatherings are described in court documents as weeks-long congregations where people from around the world gather to live in peace while surrounded by nature.
Huff, who was born and raised in Missouri, began traveling internationally after earning a master's degree in 2017. The couple began a romantic relationship following their meeting in Colombia, and Huff became pregnant months later.
The family's immigration status became a central factor in their living arrangements. In July 2019, while the couple was living on a coffee ranch in Colombia, their visas expired and could not be renewed. They faced a decision about where to relocate for the child's birth, considering Mexico, Chile, or the United States as options.
However, Alzu's legal status prevented him from entering those countries, leading the couple to choose Argentina, where his family lived. This decision would later become crucial to the custody dispute, as it established the foundation for Alzu's claim that Argentina was the child's country of habitual residence.
According to court documents, before the child's birth, Huff and Alzu made plans to attend a Rainbow Gathering in Chile and travel through South America with their child. The couple's nomadic lifestyle and international background added complexity to determining the child's habitual residence under international law.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a framework for resolving international custody disputes by requiring the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence. The International Child Abduction Remedies Act serves as the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention in the United States.
To succeed under the Hague Convention, a petitioner must typically prove that the child was wrongfully removed or retained, that the removal breached the petitioner's custody rights, and that those rights were actually being exercised at the time of removal. The concept of habitual residence is central to these cases but can be particularly challenging when families have lived in multiple countries.
The district court's denial of Alzu's petition suggests that the trial court found deficiencies in his case, either in establishing Argentina as the child's habitual residence, proving wrongful removal, or demonstrating that he had custody rights that were being exercised. The Eighth Circuit's affirmance indicates that the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's analysis.
The timing of the case reflects the lengthy process involved in international custody disputes. The case was submitted to the Eighth Circuit on Nov. 20, 2025, and the decision was filed just over two months later on Jan. 23, 2026.
The ruling affects how courts interpret habitual residence in cases involving parents with nomadic lifestyles or unclear residential status. The decision may influence future cases where parents have lived in multiple countries and lack clear ties to any single jurisdiction.
The case also highlights the challenges faced by international families when immigration status affects their ability to establish stable residence in preferred countries. The couple's choice of Argentina appears to have been driven by practical necessity rather than a clear preference for establishing the child's residence there.
The Eighth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Missouri, where the district court case was heard, making this decision binding precedent for similar cases in the circuit. The affirmance leaves Alzu without further recourse unless he seeks review by the Supreme Court, which rarely grants certiorari in Hague Convention cases absent conflicts between circuits or novel legal questions.
This decision adds to the body of case law interpreting the Hague Convention's requirements, particularly regarding the establishment of habitual residence in complex international custody situations involving mobile families.