On July 14, 2026, 'Dancing with the Stars' pro Gleb Savchenko filed in Los Angeles Superior Court for temporary sole legal and physical custody of his 15-year-old daughter and a Hague Convention petition to return his 8-year-old, alleging ex-wife Elena Samodanova kept both children in Hong Kong past an agreed June 2024 return date. For California parents, the case turns on one question: which country is the children's "habitual residence."
Key Facts
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | Gleb Savchenko filed for emergency temporary sole legal/physical custody + a Hague Convention return petition |
| When | Filed July 14, 2026; mediation set for August 5, 2026 |
| Where | Los Angeles Superior Court (California family court) |
| Who's affected | Savchenko, ex-wife Elena Samodanova, and their two daughters (ages 15 and 8) |
| Key law | Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980); UCCJEA, Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 |
| Impact | Court must first decide jurisdiction and the children's "habitual residence" before ruling on custody |
The filing, first reported by TMZ on July 15, 2026, alleges Samodanova broke a temporary-relocation agreement by keeping the girls in Hong Kong past the June 2024 return date. Samodanova counters that Hong Kong is now the children's legal home and that the California emergency filing bypasses proper jurisdiction. Neither claim is resolved — the August 5 mediation and any Hague ruling will decide it.
Why This Matters Legally
The central legal issue is not custody — it is jurisdiction. Before a California judge can decide who gets the children, the court must determine whether California or Hong Kong has the authority to hear the case. That threshold question controls everything that follows, and it is why an "emergency" custody request can stall for months.
International relocation disputes are governed by two overlapping frameworks: the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which the United States and Hong Kong both apply, and, domestically, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified in California at Cal. Fam. Code § 3421. The Hague Convention does not decide custody. It decides one thing: whether a child wrongfully removed from — or retained away from — their country of "habitual residence" must be returned to that country so its courts can rule on custody.
That is the fight here. Savchenko argues the children's habitual residence remained California and that keeping them past the June 2024 return date became a wrongful retention. Samodanova argues that after years in Hong Kong, the children's habitual residence shifted there, meaning Hong Kong courts — not Los Angeles — should decide. Habitual residence is a fact-intensive determination based on where the child has lived, gone to school, and built social ties, not on either parent's stated intent alone. Understanding the difference between legal and physical custody is essential to following how these cases unfold.
How California Law Handles This
California courts apply the UCCJEA to determine whether they have jurisdiction over an international custody matter. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421, California has "home state" jurisdiction only if the child lived in California with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the custody proceeding began — or if California was the home state within the prior six months and a parent still lives here. If the children have been in Hong Kong since 2024, establishing California home-state jurisdiction is legally difficult, which is precisely the vulnerability in Savchenko's filing.
California does provide an emergency escape valve. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3424, a California court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if a child is present in the state, or if the child has been abandoned or emergency protection is needed. But temporary emergency jurisdiction is exactly that — temporary. It does not give California permanent authority to decide custody if another forum is the child's home state.
On the custody merits, if a California court does reach them, Cal. Fam. Code § 3011 requires judges to decide based on the best interest of the child, weighing health, safety, welfare, and the nature of each parent's contact. California also recognizes a child's own preference: under Cal. Fam. Code § 3042, a child 14 or older — like the 15-year-old here — may address the court about custody unless the judge finds it not in the child's best interest. Relocation disputes involving an existing custody order are further governed by California's move-away standards, which require the moving parent to show the relocation serves the child's best interest.
For parents navigating custody questions after a move, a personalized divorce roadmap can help clarify which steps come first. You can also learn more about how child custody arrangements work under state law.
Practical Takeaways
For any California parent facing a possible international relocation dispute, this case offers concrete lessons:
-
Get relocation agreements in writing with firm dates. A vague "temporary" move invites exactly this dispute. Any agreement allowing a child to live abroad should specify an exact return date and state that California retains jurisdiction.
-
Act before the six-month clock runs. Under the UCCJEA, home-state jurisdiction can shift once a child lives in another location for six consecutive months. If you believe your co-parent is not returning a child on time, consult an attorney immediately — waiting can cost you your home-state forum.
-
Know that Hague petitions are about return, not custody. A Hague Convention petition asks a court to send the child back to their habitual-residence country so that country's courts decide custody. Winning a Hague return does not mean winning custody.
-
Document the child's California ties. Schools, doctors, activities, and residence history all feed the habitual-residence analysis. Preserve records showing the child's life was centered in California.
-
Prepare for mediation seriously. The August 5 mediation in this case reflects how California prioritizes negotiated parenting resolutions. Mediation can resolve international disputes faster and cheaper than litigation. If you need professional help, you can find a divorce attorney experienced in interstate and international custody.
International custody cases are among the most complex in family law, blending federal treaty obligations with state jurisdiction rules. If you are worried about a co-parent relocating with your child — or you are the parent who has already moved — the deadlines are short and the stakes are high. Speaking with a California family law attorney early, before jurisdiction shifts, is the single most important step you can take.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.