Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred as a matter of law by affirming the district court's ruling that Canada had become AEN's habitual residence and that therefore removal of the child to Virginia was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURTS RULING THAT CANADA HAD BECOME AEN’S HABITUAL RESIDENCE AND THAT THEREFORE REMOVAL OF THE CHILD TO VIRGINIA WAS WRONGFUL WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION?