there. Although the district court relied on McManus v. McManus, 354 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.Mass.2005), to support its acclimatization finding, McManus involved children between the ages of eleven and fourteen who, over the course of two years living abroad, “enrolled in and attended schools, joined organized sports teams, participated in church activities, and engaged in other activities as residents of the country would.” Id. at 67 (finding habitual residence in Northern Ireland when parents intended to live there indefinitely and children were acclimatized). Here, in contrast, the children were ages one and two at the time of retention. These ages are important, because acclimatization is rarely, if ever, a significant factor when children are very young. See Holder, 392 F.3d at 1020-21 (<HOLDING>). They did not attend school and did not
holding that although a parents general duty to support his or her child ends when the child reaches twentyone years of age parents are free to enter into binding agreements to do so recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection holding that parents who filed a civil rights action following the removal of child by child welfare authorities failed to connect program directors actions to alleged violation of parents constitutional rights holding that in the case of a tenmonthold child it is practically impossible for a child so young who is entirely dependent on its parents to acclimatize independent of the immediate home environment of the parents holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom