GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A West Michigan couple, with their four young children, sold their home and left trappings of American life behind to embark on an epic adventure, traveling the world with lives of "location independence.”

They visited the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Africa, Qatar, Spain and Portugal, among many other places, before returning to the United States. Then, they set off again, for Mexico and South and Central America countries.

Now, the couple – Rebekah and Paul Kortman – are embroiled in an international custody dispute after she brought the kids back to West Michigan while he stayed in Guanajuto, Mexico, where, he says, they had established residency.

He contends the children should be returned to him and that the custody issue should be decided by a court in Mexico, not the United States.

He filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids under civil aspects of the Hague Convention, which is intended to protect children from parental abduction and to return them to their habitual homes.

The circumstances in Kortman v. Kortman have not previously been litigated under Hague, an attorney said.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker said the case presents an unusual legal question.

“At a minimum, this presents – at least for this court – a novel context for application of the Hague Convention,” he said.

He urged the parties to “brief the court on whether and how the Hague Convention deals with the concept of habitual residence for a family that evidently promoted and chose a ‘life of location independence’ before the parental dispute arose. Their website asks, ‘Will we settle somewhere or will we do travel as a lifestyle? We’re not sure, but what we know is we’re location independent and enjoying it.’”

They had spent a year living in the Philippines, Thailand, South Africa and a Kent County farmhouse overlooking the Flat River when they were featured in a 2015 MLive/The Grand Rapids Press article on being “location independent.” They were also featured in a story on nomadic families by The New York Times.

Paul Kortman had established a digital marketing company that allowed him to work anywhere. They sold their house near Newaygo and hit the road.

They created websites, nomadtogether.com, and Home Along the Way, to share experiences with other families choosing the lifestyle.

The Kortmans began living in Mexico with their children in November 2015. They applied for permanent residency status that month and were granted such status in January 2016.

The wife contends they only sought the status to avoid costs of traveling to have visas renewed.

The parents separated in May.

They shared parenting time until Aug. 2, when the mother “secreted the minor children out of Mexico and into the United States,” his attorney, Matthew DeLange, wrote in court documents.

“Rebekah was aware that Paul did not consent to the minor children being removed from Mexico.”

DeLange argued the Hague Convention requires participating countries to “protect the interest of aggrieved parties … pending resolution of their claims. Accordingly, Congress empowers federal courts to take any measures available under law ‘to protect the well-being of the child involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the [Hague] petition.”

The father said he had parental custodial rights under Mexican law where the divorce and custody action were pending.

All he wants, his attorney said, is his children’s return to Mexico, their habitual residence, which would not change their mother’s own custody rights.

Federal judges are authorized, under the Hague Convention, to “determine the merits of a claim for wrongful removal or retention of a child. The Hague Convention does not, however, allow the district court to consider the merits of any underlying custody dispute,” DeLange wrote.

He said the “Hague Convention is intended to restore the pre-abduction status quo and deter parents from crossing borders in search of more sympathetic courts.”

DeLange, who did not respond to requests for comment, said it is possible that Rebekah and the children could go into hiding. The judge has ordered the children to stay in the Western District of Michigan.

Attorney Robert Alvarez represents Rebekah Kortman. He has handled other Hague Convention cases and has a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. He said the international law should not apply.

The Kortmans, he said, set off on an “epic adventure” that included traveling to other countries, and producing a blog, podcasts, Facebook posts and a book about their “nomadic lifestyle.”

Ultimately, travel and financial problems put too much stress on the marriage.

“This matter offers this court a unique set of circumstances as yet unseen in Hague litigation,” Alvarez wrote. “Should the Hague Convention apply when two parties take their children on an extended vacation from a presumed home base in the United States or where the parties have purposely pursued a lifestyle that promotes ‘location independence?’”

He said the family was continuing its nomadic lifestyle, and, though they had been living in Mexico, had not established residency by settling down in an actual home, getting jobs and enrolling their children in schools and other activities.

“As the parties’ intent was simply to travel and they made the purposeful and very public decision to not only be ‘location dependent’ but to teach others how to do the same, the United States should have jurisdiction over this case.”

He said they never settled in Mexico but their travel plans ended because of money problems, martial strife – and weariness of living in a cramped, unreliable motor home.

He said the husband cannot accept that they cannot afford to continue their travels. His client, however, “is realistic about the parties’ current situation, and she simply returned home after a long vacation,” he said.

“In this case, returning the children to Mexico would produce a bizarre result given the lack of roots placed by the family, and thus the children, in any one location.”

He said the husband falsely claimed to have a residence in Mexico by using his attorney’s address and saying he was retired.

The children had a home in West Michigan, family and a school.

“The same can never be said of Mexico.”

The mother wanted to bring the children to visit their father in Mexico but feared he would have her arrested for kidnapping, Alvarez said. She contacted the U.S. Embassy the day before she had a driver take her and her children across the border to Laredo, Texas, court records showed.

She said she was told by the embassy she could legally return to her home country with her children.

The husband said he had “rights of custody” under Mexican law and said his estranged wife wrongly held the children in Mexico. Alvarez said their habitual residence is in the United States, so they cannot be wrongfully maintained by their mother.

Alvarez declined to comment beyond what’s contained in court filings.

Jonker, the judge, urged both sides to reach an early resolution to the case outside of court.

“The court recognizes the reality that parties are sometimes unable to come to an agreement and if an agreement cannot be reached in this case, the court stands ready to adjudicate the matter. However, while this case presents interesting and compelling facts and issues, all sides should be mindful of the real-world impact that will likely follow from litigating this case."