relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence.” Hague Convention art. 5(a). The analysis is based on the custody status at the time of the alleged wrongful removal. See White v. White, 718 F.3d 300, 307 (4th Cir.2013); Miller, 240 F.3d at 401. The Court heard expert testimony on Peruvian family law from Bustamante, who stated that, at the moment a child is born, Peruvian law grants each biological parent custody rights in the form of patria potestas. This Roman law concept, which originally referred to the absolute authority of the father over his child,- generally refers to the rights of both biological parents to exercise authority over their children, See Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 456-57 ( .2006) (<HOLDING>). During a marriage, the parents jointly
recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection holding right to family integrity is nebulous in nature and not sufficiently particularized for government officials to know that their conduct in removing children from parents custody without court order violated parents substantive rights holding that german law presumptively confers joint custody upon both parents until a court enters a contrary order holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period holding  without reference to supreme court case law to the contrary  that in nevada contractual jury waivers are presumptively valid