BEAM, Circuit Judge,
with whom LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, join.
Robert Silverman (Robert) appeals the district court’s rulings on his claim under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), 19 I.L.M. 1501 (1980), as implemented by the United States in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11601-11610 (ICARA). Because we find that the children’s habitual residence was Israel at the time of their removal and that there is no grave risk of harm to the children if they are returned to Israel, we reverse the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the facts found by the district court, Robert Silverman and Julie Hechter (Julie) met in Israel in 1988 and married in Seattle, Washington, in 1989. They moved throughout the United States and had two children, Sam and Jacob.2 The family lived in Plymouth, Minnesota, until their move to Israel in late July of 1999.3 Both Robert and Julie testified in the district court that the move to Israel was Julie’s idea and that she was the one pushing for the family to make the move. They sold their Minnesota home in January of 1999, Robert applied for and made Aliyah (immigration) to Israel,4 and the family moved all of their possessions and their family pets to Israel. While both Robert and Julie set the move up to be permanent, Julie stated in the district court that she was torn about the move, but went ahead with it as a final effort to reconcile the couple’s failing marriage.5
Both Robert and Julie obtained employment in Israel. The family lived with rela[890]*890tives in Israel until November 1999, when they rented an apartment and signed a one-year lease. In October 1999, Julie flew to the United States to file for bankruptcy in Minnesota. Julie returned to Israel later that month to discover that Robert had obtained a Tzav Ikuv (restraining order), which prevented her from leaving Israel, and that he had put the children’s passports and birth certificates in his father’s safe deposit box. Robert told her at this point that he knew about the affair she had been having with a man from Massachusetts. Robert cancelled the restraining order on November 3, 1999, after they decided to try to reconcile their marriage. Robert testified in the district court that he would not have allowed Julie to leave Israel with the children at any point between October 1999 and June 2000. During this time, Julie stated that Robert threatened her, used force against her and attempted to coerce her.6 In January 2000, Julie and Robert returned to Minnesota without the children to complete bankruptcy proceedings and they both stated, under oath, that their permanent address was Plymouth, Minnesota. Both of them subsequently returned to Israel. In April 2000, Robert and Julie signed and filed a joint United States income tax form for 1999, which listed their address as Plymouth, Minnesota.
While in Israel, Sam enrolled in an elementary school and Jacob enrolled in preschool. They made friends, learned to speak Hebrew and did well in school. Sam participated in extracurricular activities at his school. During this time, Julie counseled with an Israeli attorney and was told she would probably not get custody of the children through the Israeli Rabbinical court if she separated from Robert in Israel.7 Robert found out about this discussion and filed for divorce in Rabbinical court. He later cancelled this proceeding.
At the end of June 2000, Robert allowed Julie to leave Israel with the two children for what she represented would be a summer trip to the United States. She purchased round-trip tickets with the return trip scheduled for August 30, 2000. At the airport before their departure, Robert threatened Julie, apparently because of his continuing concern that she would not return to Israel with the children, a fear soon realized. She testified that it was at that moment at the airport that she decided not to return to Israel. Julie filed for legal separation from Robert and for custody of the two children in Minnesota state court on August 10, 2000. Robert was served summons in Israel. Robert immediately moved for dismissal of the action, arguing that the state court lacked authority to hear the custody issues because there had not yet been the necessary determinations of “wrongful removal and retention” and “habitual residence” as mandated by the Hague Convention and ICARA, determinations designed to establish whether Israel or the United States had jurisdiction to hear a child custody case.8
[891]*891The record reveals that on August 24, 2000, fourteen days after Julie’s Minnesota action had been commenced, Robert filed in Israel a “Request for Return of Abducted Children” with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), pursuant to the Hague Convention. On September 22, 2000, a NCMEC agent contacted Robert’s Israeli attorney and requested that the attorney obtain a determination from the Israeli courts as to whether Julie had wrongfully removed or retained the children within the meaning of the Hague Convention. Some time shortly thereafter, Robert filed a Hague Convention petition in Israel seeking such a determination. In addition to filing the Israeli action, Robert filed a Hague petition on October 5, 2000, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking return of the children to Israel under the Convention. Julie was personally served summons in this matter on October 10, 2000.9 This filing and service preceded any determinations in the state custody matter. Indeed, it preceded the final order of the Minnesota trial court by almost seven months.
On October 17, 2000, although on notice of Robert’s Hague filings,10 a state court referee issued an interlocutory administrative order granting Julie temporary custody of the children. Armed with this temporary order, Julie testified that in February 2001 she decided to move with the two children to Massachusetts to live with her paramour. They subsequently moved.
Within a month after the October 17, 2000, temporary order, upon the request of Julie, the district court dismissed the federal Hague claims on abstention grounds, Silverman v. Silverman, No. 00-2274 (D.Minn. Nov. 13, 2000), but we reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, finding that abstention does not apply in Hague Convention cases. Silverman v. Silverman, 267 F.3d 788, 792 (8th Cir.2001). On November 16, 2000, while both the state custody and federal Hague matters were pending in various courts in the United States, the Israeli court ruled that Israel was the place of habitual residence of Sam and Jacob as defined in the Convention and that Julie’s failure to return them to Israel was prima facie evidence of wrongful retention of the children in violation of the Convention.11 A copy of this decision was furnished to the Israel Central Authority created by Articles 6 and 7 of the Hague Convention for use in the United States under the terms of Article 15 of the Convention.12 On May 4, [892]*8922001, the Minnesota trial court entered a final judgment awarding full child custody to Julie, child support from Robert and attorney fees to Julie. While this order specifically stated that the court was on notice of pending Hague Convention litigation, the court decided the custody issues anyway, applying only Minnesota law. The state court determined neither the “habitual residence” of the children nor the issue of “wrongful removal or retention” as required by and defined in the Hague Convention and ICARA. Indeed, it was not asked to do so. The court, in awarding Julie custody and child support, found that Minnesota was the children’s “home state” as referenced in Minnesota Statutes § 518D.102. In section 518D.102(h), “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent ... for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.... A period of temporary absence ... is part of the period.” But, “state” is defined in the statute and includes only the fifty states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and other United States territories and possessions. Thus, a determination of “home state” under the Minnesota statute is clearly not equivalent to a determination of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention because under the Minnesota act, Israel could not have been determined to be the “home state” of the children.
No appeal was taken from the May 4, 2001, judgment but after the October 17, 2000, interlocutory order, Robert, on October 27, 2000, sought a writ of prohibition from the Minnesota Court of Appeals to restrain the implementation of the temporary ruling. Before this request was heard, however, the federal district court entered its abstention and dismissal order of November 13, 2000, an order later reversed by this court, as earlier noted. Without reviewing the Minnesota trial court order on the merits or considering any issues of federal law, including Hague Convention issues, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, using the federal court dismissal as a basis, denied the application for writ of prohibition as moot, indicating specifically that Robert was free to file a Hague petition in Hennepin County (Minnesota) Court. Silverman v. Silverman, Order C2-00-1879 (Minn.Ct.App., Nov. 21, 2000). So, to date, neither Robert nor Julie has ever requested any Minnesota court to make any Hague Convention or ICARA determinations and no such determinations have been made by any state tribunal.
On May 9, 2002, the federal district court ruled in favor of Julie on Robert’s Hague Convention claim, finding that Minnesota was the “habitual residence” of the children13 and, alternatively, that even [893]*893if Israel was their habitual residence, that there was a grave risk in returning the children to Israel under the Article 13(b) exception to the Convention. Silverman v. Silverman, No. 00-2274, 2002 WL 971808 (D.Minn. May 9, 2002). Robert appeals this decision.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
At the outset, we address the relevance and applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the claims in this case, an issue not raised by either party but by the court itself at oral argument, and now advanced for the first time by Julie in this appeal. More specifically, the Rooker-Feldman question is whether the state court judgment of May 4, 2001, divested the lower federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction to consider and review the Hague Convention and ICARA controversies raised by Robert in the federal district court. We find the doctrine inapplicable.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that the inferior federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a state court’s final judicial determination. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983);. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). “Under the legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than [the Supreme] court [can] entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the [state court] judgment .... ” Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416, 44 S.Ct. 149; see 28 U.S.C. § 1257. However, applying such a simply stated rule has proven to be both complex and difficult. This is because the doctrine, in practice, has become a fluid mix of appellate subject matter jurisdiction, claim and issue preclusion, and, perhaps, abstention concepts. It has been extended not only to straightforward review of state court judgments, but also to “indirect attempts by federal plaintiffs to undermine state court decisions.” Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir.2000). In determining whether Rooker-Feldman applies in a particular case, a federal court must determine whether the claim before it is “inextricably intertwined” with the claim already decided in the state court. Id. at 492-93. “A claim brought in federal court is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment ‘if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issue before it.’ ” Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir.2003), (quoting Lemonds, 222 F.3d at 493.) “Where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues ... are inextricably intertwined.” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2001).
According to several commentators, Rooker-Feldman analysis is influenced, in part, by the supremacy clause, full faith and credit concepts and congressional concerns for comity with and respect for the rights of the sovereign states. See U.S. Const, art. VI, § 1, cl. 2 & art. IV, § 1. The subject matter jurisdiction of the “inferior courts” of the United States is assigned through and limited by acts of Congress. Id. at art. Ill, §§ 1 & 2. Acting upon this Constitutional power,
the policy of the successive acts of Congress regulating the jurisdiction of federal courts is one calling for [] strict construction .... Due regard for the rightful independence of state govern[894]*894ments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits ... the statute has defined.
Brewer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., — U.S.-,-, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 1886, 155 L.Ed.2d 923 (2003) (some alterations in original) (internal quotations omitted). Rooker and Feldman noted that Congress, in applying this policy, has limited federal subject matter jurisdiction over issues of direct review of state court decisions to the Supreme Court. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416, 44 S.Ct. 149 (citing Judicial Code, § 237, as amended September 6,1916); Feldman, 460 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257). This does not mean, and the Rooker-Feldman decisions do not hold, that Congress has prohibited federal appellate courts from reviewing matters decided by federal district courts under specific grants of original jurisdiction, even when concurrent grants of original jurisdiction lie with both the state and federal courts in particular situations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Congress adopted the Hague Convention, an international treaty, making it, under the Constitution, part of “the supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const, art. VI, § 1, cl. 2; Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341, 44 S.Ct. 515, 68 L.Ed. 1041 (1924). Congress then implemented the Hague treaty by enactment of ICARA. While ICARA grants original concurrent jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention to the courts of the states and the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(a), several restrictions in the treaty and ICARA guide these grants of jurisdiction in both sovereigns’ courts. First, full faith and credit shall be accorded a prior judgment in either state or federal court, but only if the judgment arises through adjudication of a Hague Convention claim in accordance with the dictates of the Convention and ICARA. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(g); see, e.g., Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 864 (9th Cir.2002). As earlier noted, neither Robert nor Julie has ever requested any Minnesota court to make Hague Convention or ICARA determinations, and no state court has done so. Thus, the May 4, 2001, order of the Minnesota court is not entitled to full faith and credit under section 11603(g), and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not override federal statutory grants of original jurisdiction under ICARA or this court’s appellate jurisdiction under section 1291.
In Holder, the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in only a slightly different context. No ICARA action was pending when a California state court rendered a child custody determination, arguably, according to the state court plaintiff, eliminating the need for a Hague proceeding. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, noting correctly that “[i]t would [] undermine the very scheme created by the Hague Convention and ICARA to hold that a Hague Convention claim is barred [in federal district court] by a state court custody determination.” 305 F.3d at 865 (emphasis in original). Indeed, Article 16 of the Convention states,
[a]fter receiving notice of a wrongful removal ... the judicial ... authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained [the United States] shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice [by the state court].
Further, as noted in footnote 8, Article 16 of the Hague Convention precludes a determination of custody in an abducted-to [895]*895nation, here the United States, unless and until Israel is determined not to be the habitual residence of the children in a Hague proceeding brought under ICARA.
In Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1085 n. 55 (9th Cir.2001), upon facts very similar to those in this case, Judge Kozinski noted that,
the [federal] district court would not be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from vacating the [California] Superior Court’s custodial decree .... Because the doctrine is one of congressional intent, not constitutional mandate, it follows that where Congress has specifically granted jurisdiction to the federal courts, the doctrine does not apply.
We agree. Julie’s late-blooming argument that a state court custody decision can somehow trump clearly granted federal court jurisdiction to decide and review issues of congressionally adopted policy and procedure is simply untenable. The Rook-er-Feldman doctrine has no application under the circumstances of this case.
Even if Julie had sought Hague Convention relief under ICARA in state court, Rooker-Feldman would be inapposite. A final state court order arising under the congressionally assigned subject matter would, of course, deserve full faith and credit under section 11603(g) of ICARA and, perhaps, if necessary, issue and claim preclusion protections under federal common law theories of res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional limitations would be neither necessary nor applicable.
Assuming that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was somehow applicable to this case, the doctrine would strip away federal jurisdiction only if the issues in the state and federal cases were the same or “inextricably intertwined.” Lemonds, 222 F.3d at 492-93. The question would be whether the federal district court was called upon to review the same or similar issues as those decided by the state court at an earlier time. But, the district court did not purport to review the merits of the state custody decision or, even, the jurisdiction of the state court to make a child custody decision applying state law. Thus, there was no intertwinement. More specifically, the Minnesota decisions-the referee’s temporary order, the trial judge’s final order and the Minnesota Court of Appeals judgment-dealt only with divorce, child custody, child support and, perhaps, peripheral and limited procedural and interstate (not international) jurisdictional issues.14 On the other hand, the district court made no determinations whatsoever on the merits of the separation, custody, or support and, as noted earlier, it would have been inappropriate for it to do so in a Hague Convention case. The sole decision made by the district court was whether Julie “wrongfully removed and retained” the children from their “habitual residence” in violation of the Hague treaty as adopted by ICARA. Accordingly, the district court was in no way stripped of its jurisdiction to make these determinations by even the most broad-ranging view of Rooker-Feldman.15
Finally, it is also probable that the state judgment of May 4, 2001, is of dubious [896]*896validity for reasons other than the district court action. This is so because the November 16, 2000, Israeli court order, finding both habitual residence of the children in Israel and wrongful removal of the children from Israel, was enforceable in the United States under the treaty and ICARA. The Israeli order directed the filing of a copy of the order with the Central Agency of Israel for use in the United States under Article 15 of the treaty. Upon such a finding and filing, Article 16 of the Convention specifically precluded Minnesota from determining custody issues involving these children.
B. Standard of Review
Having determined that the district court had jurisdiction to decide the Hague Convention issues, we now consider which standard of review we should apply in this appeal. Both parties agree that the “grave risk of harm” determination should be reviewed de novo. The conflict arises regarding the standard of review for the district court’s habitual residence determination.
This court has not yet articulated a standard of review for habitual residence determinations under the Hague Convention. Julie and the dissent argue that the habitual residence determination is one of fact, to be reviewed for clear error. We disagree, being more persuaded by the Ninth and Third Circuits, which have determined that habitual residence determinations raise mixed questions of fact and law and therefore should be reviewed de novo. Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1073; Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 222 n. 9 (3d Cir.1995) (“[T]he determination of habitual residence is not purely factual, but requires the application of a legal standard ... to historical and narrative facts. It is, therefore, a conclusion of law or at least a determination of a mixed question of law and fact.”).
We recognize that a habitual residence determination must be based on facts and that the facts will vary considerably in each situation. But a district court’s determination of habitual residence is not devoid of legal principles. It is not a question of pure fact, to be decided without reference to statutory language and established legal precedent. It must contain an objective standard. Whether “habitual residence.” is labeled an application of facts to a legal principle, analogous to a probable cause determination,16 or an “ultimate faet[ ] based upon the application of legal principles to subsidiary facts,” McNeilus Truck and Mfg., Inc. v. Ohio ex. rel. Montgomery, 226 F.3d 429, 437 (6th Cir.2000), it is necessarily a determination subject to de novo appellate review.
As the court pointed out in Mozes, it is imperative that parents be able to assess the status of the law on habitual residence and wrongful removal and retention. 239 F.3d at 1072-73. If habitual residence is treated as a purely factual matter, to be decided by an individual judge in individual circumstances unique to each case, parents will never be able to guess, let alone determine, whether they are at risk of losing custody by allowing their children to visit overseas or in allowing them to make international trips with an estranged spouse. With such uncertainty, parents experiencing marital difficulties will be less likely to allow children to travel with one parent and less likely to allow children to maintain relationships with families in other countries. Congress must have intended that there be enough consistency in [897]*897these cases to prevent such a result. Indeed, we find it difficult to believe that American legislators intended to launch American citizens into such unchartable waters. Thus, we think it is not only the correct conclusion that habitual residence be a legal determination subject to de novo review, we also think it is the correct policy conclusion under the language of the Hague Convention and ICARA.
C. Habitual Residence
The Hague Convention has two objects: (1) “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State” and (2) “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” 19 I.L.M. 1501, Art. 1. The Hague Convention protects children from “wrongful removal or retention” from their “habitual residence.” The Hague Convention defines wrongful removal,
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where — a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person ... under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
Id. at Art. 3.
Generally speaking, “wrongful removal” refers to the taking of a child from the person who was actually exercising custody of the child. “Wrongful retention” refers to the act of keeping the child without the consent of the person who was actually exercising custody. The archetype of this conduct is the refusal by the noncustodial parent to return a child at the end of an authorized visitation period.
51 Fed.Reg. 10494. Julie concedes that she retained the children in the United States without Robert’s permission and that Robert was exercising, and would have continued to exercise, his custody rights in Israel except for the removal. She argues, however, that the removal was not from the country of the children’s “habitual residence,” thus the Hague Convention does not apply. The district court agreed with her contention. Silverman, 2002 WL 971808.17
“Habitual residence” is not defined in the language of the Hague Convention or by ICARA. However, the text of the Convention directs courts to only one point in time in determining habitual residence: the point in time “immediately before the removal or retention.” Art. 3. [898]*898Additionally, the text of the Convention points to the child’s, not the parents’, habitual residence. Id. A person may have only one habitual residence, and it should not be confused with domicile. Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir.1995); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 (6th Cir.1993) (hereinafter “Friedrich /”). “[T]he court must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions.” Nunez-Esendero, 58 F.3d at 379, (citing Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1401). Habitual residence may only be altered by a change in geography and passage of time. Id.
Federal courts are agreed that “habitual residence” must encompass some form of “settled purpose.” Feder, 63 F.3d at 222-23. This settled purpose need not be to stay in a new location forever, but the family must have a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.” Id. at 223, (citing In re Bates, No. CA 122-89, High Court of Justice, Family Div’l Ct. Royal Courts of Justice, United Kingdom (1989)). Additionally, the settled purpose must be from the child’s perspective, although parental intent is also taken into account. Feder, 63 F.3d at 222; Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1401.
In its determination that the Silvermans’ habitual residence never changed from Minnesota to Israel, the district court enumerated its factual findings. The district court determined that 1) Robert and Julie sold their home in Minnesota prior to their move to Israel; 2) Julie wanted to move to Israel to raise her children; 3) the move was set up by the parents to be permanent; 4) the family shipped their household goods to Israel prior to their move; 5) the family rented an apartment in Israel; and 6) the children were enrolled in school in Israel and participated in activities there. Silverman, 2002 WL 971808, at *2-3. We need not disturb these findings. The district court coupled these facts with its factual conclusion that Julie was prevented from leaving Israel by the Tzav Ikuv from October to November of 1999 and that Robert would not have allowed Julie to leave Israel with the children from October 1999 until June 2000. Applying these facts to the Hague Convention, the district court concluded that, despite the intent present at the time of the move to Israel and the outward appearance of a permanent move, Julie’s unilateral desire to return to the United States, coupled with the alleged abuse from October 1999, eliminated the settled intent necessary to establish habitual residence. The district court erred.
The court should have looked at the habitual residence of the Silverman children at the time Julie removed them from Israel, keeping in mind that they could only have one habitual residence. The court should have determined the degree of settled purpose from the children’s perspective, including the family’s change in geography along with their personal possessions and pets, the passage of time, the family abandoning its prior residence and selling the house, the application for and securing of benefits only available to Israeli immigrants,18 the children’s enrollment [899]*899in school, and, to some degree, both parents’ intentions at the time of the move to Israel. Fairly assessing these facts, there is only one acceptable legal conclusion regarding the children’s habitual residence: they were habitual residents of Israel.
The Ninth Circuit anticipated the exact type of situation faced by the district court.
[There are] cases where the court finds that the family as a unit has manifested a settled purpose to change habitual residence, despite the fact that one parent may have had qualms about the move. Most commonly, this occurs when both parents and the child translocate together under circumstances suggesting that they intend to make their home in the new country. When courts find that a family has jointly taken all the steps associated with abandoning habitual residence in one country to take it up in another, they are generally unwilling to let one parent’s alleged reservations about the move stand in the way of finding a shared and settled purpose.
Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1076-77.
In Feder, the Third Circuit reversed a trial court’s determination of habitual residence in a case with several facts similar to this one. 63 F.3d at 220 & 224. The parents moved to Australia with their son. The father intended to stay there, while the mother had doubts about her marriage and about Australia. The family did not sell their house in the United States, but did buy one in Australia. Six months after moving to Australia, the mother took the son on a “vacation” to the United States and, while there, filed for divorce and custody. Id. The trial court found that the son’s habitual residence was the United States because the mother never decided for sure to stay in Australia. The Third Circuit reversed, emphasizing the need to look at both parents’ intentions and the lifestyle of the son (who had enrolled in school in Australia), discounting the mother’s plan to return to the United States if the marriage failed while in Australia. Id. These facts are analogous to the facts in this case and we agree with the Third Circuit that one spouse harboring reluctance during a move does not eliminate the settled purpose from the children’s perspective.
The district court also failed to consider that Julie initially contemplated a divorce in Israel, although the record supports this fact, especially given her testimony that her reluctance was not based upon living in Israel but upon the viability of her marriage. When she contacted an attorney in Israel, however, she was told that she would lose custody of her children in the Israeli Rabbinical courts. In Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.1995), this court addressed a “habitual residence” issue by referring to the primary purpose of the Hague Convention: “to restore the status quo ante and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.” This court upheld the district court’s decision to return children to their father in Poland after their mother, who was having marital difficulties, took them to the United States, without the consent of her husband, to obtain a divorce and custody. Id. This case is analogous. After speaking with her attorney in Israel, but without filing for a divorce or custody there, Julie moved to the United States and promptly obtained the desired custody decision here. This appears to be the sort of forum shopping addressed in Rydder that the Convention was designed to prevent. Id.
[900]*900Finally, the district court also found that the habitual residence of the children did not change because Julie’s residence in Israel was coerced due to the abuse she suffered. Habitual residence is not established when the removing spouse is coerced involuntarily to move to or remain in another country. Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1055 (E.D.Wash.2001) (father’s intent to remain in foreign country concealed from mother and abuse of mother and children eliminated any choice in the move); In re Application of Ponath, 829 F.Supp. 363, 367 (D.Utah 1993) (move was expressed to be, and intended by mother to be, an extended vacation). Unlike the situations in Tsarbopoulos and Ponath, the record here establishes that there was no abuse prior to the move or for at least two months after the move, there was no coercion in getting Julie to move to Israel, and there is no alleged abuse of the children. Julie intended to move permanently to Israel pri- or to the move and, upon arrival in July, she intended to make Israel her home. She was the primary force behind the family’s relocation to Israel and she always intended to return to Israel to raise her children.19 Her subsequent, post-move desire to return to the United States, and the finding by the district court that she was subjected to coercion and abuse beginning two months after her arrival, does not change the legal conclusion that the habitual residence of the children changed from Minnesota to Israel.
For these reasons, we find that the children’s habitual residence is in Israel and that Robert has met his burden of presenting a prima facie case under the Convention.
D. Grave Risk of Harm
The district court found that even if the children’s habitual residence is in Israel, they need not be returned to Israel because they will face a “grave risk of physical harm” there. Silverman, 2002 WL 971808, at *8. The district court reached this conclusion, in part, because the violence in Israel makes it a “zone of war,” which is dangerous for the children. Id.
The “grave risk of physical or psychological harm” defense is an affirmative defense under Article 13(b) of the Convention that Julie must prove with clear and convincing evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)(2)(A); Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1400. In Rydder, this court held that in order to apply the Article 13(b) exception, the court would need to cite specific evidence of potential harm to the individual children. 49 F.3d at 373. There are two types of grave risk that are appropriate under Article 13(b): sending a child to a “zone of war, famine, or disease,” or in cases of serious abuse or neglect. Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1069 (6th Cir.1996) (hereinafter “Friedrich II”); Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 162 (2d Cir.2001).
The district court found that the current situation in Israel constitutes a “zone of war,” warranting application of the “grave risk” exception. In Freier v. Freier, 969 F.Supp. 436, 443 (E.D.Mich.1996), the district court found that Israel in 1996 was not a “zone of war” under Article 13(b). In so finding, the court determined that the fighting was fifteen to ninety minutes from the children’s home, no schools were closed, businesses were open, and the mother was able to travel to and from the [901]*901country. Id. No subsequent case has found that Israel is a “zone of war” under the Convention. In fact, there does not appear to be another case that finds any country a “zone of war” under the Convention.20 Nor does the district court cite any evidence that these children are in any more specific danger living in Israel than they were when their mother voluntarily moved them there in 1999. Rather, the evidence centered on general regional violence, such as suicide bombers, that threaten everyone in Israel. This is not sufficient to establish a “zone of war” which puts the children in “grave risk of physical or psychological harm” under the Convention.
Additionally, the district court erred in taking into account the “fact that Sam and Jacob are settled in their new environment.” Silverman, 2002 WL 971808, at *10. A removing parent “must not be allowed to abduct a child and then-when brought to court-complain that the child has grown used to the surroundings to which they were abducted.” Friedrich II, 78 F.3d at 1068.
Israel is not a “zone of war” as meant by the Convention and, therefore, Julie has not met her burden of proving that a grave risk of harm exists. As no other exception applies, the district court erred in denying Robert’s Hague petition.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the district court. Israel is the habitual residence of the Silverman children and Julie wrongfully removed the children from their habitual residence. The Convention requires us to return wrongfully removed children to their habitual residence, unless specific, limited exceptions apply. No exceptions to the Hague Convention apply, and the Minnesota court’s custody determination cannot be used to prevent us from returning the children to Israel. 51 Fed.Reg. 10494-01, § ID1. Israel is the proper forum for a custody determination. We remand for entry of an order that the Silverman children be returned to Israel for a custody determination in the Israeli courts.