v. Kanth, No. 99-4246, 2000 WL 1644099, at *1-2 (10th Cir. Nov. 2, 2000); Chafin v. Chafin, 742 F.3d 934, 938-39 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). And . all but the Fourth and Eighth Circuits prioritize shared parental intent in cases concerning especially young children. See, e.g., Mauvais, 772 F.3d at 12; Guzzo, 719 F.3d at 110; Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 296; Larbie, 690 F.3d at 310; Redmond, 724 F.3d at 746; Holder, 392 F.3d at 1020-21; Kanth, 2000 WL 1644099, at *1-2; Chafin, 742 F.3d at 938 n.9. While we are of course free to diverge, we “routinely look[ ] to the majority position of other Circuits in resolving undecided issues of law” and value “harmony among the Circuits.” Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272, 278 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, it is appropriate to
recognizing split among the circuits and in this district as to the meaning of send in the hague convention and holding service by mail to anguilla permissible in light of the state departments position on the issue recognizingthat the fifth and seventh circuits have adopted the application approach whereas the tenth and eleventh circuits have adopted the registration approach recognizing limitations existence in other circuits holding that when our circuits law is unsettled and other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions the claimed error could not be clear or obvious under the second prong of the plain error test recognizing the interest prospective parties have in the uniformity and predictability of results among the circuits