Source: https://www.fjc.gov/content/330187/soto-v-contreras-case-analysis
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 01:03:27+00:00

Document:
[Mother]’s allegations of abuse—that [Father] physically and psychologically abused her, sometimes in front of their children, and that [Father] allegedly physically assaulted their daughter on one occasion—are in conflict with [Father’s] testimony. [Father] testified that he could recall one instance in which he and [Mother] engaged in a physical fight, but [Father] denied any other instances of abuse. Because neither side is able to provide objective evidence, [Mother’s] allegations of abuse fail to rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm.
The Fifth Circuit declined to consider the district court’s stay ruling. The stay ruling did not amend the district court’s trial findings and as such was not part of that court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting father’s petition for return.
Mother’s first contention was based on the district court’s comments on the lack of “objective evidence” to sustain mother’s abuse allegations. Mother argued that this characterization of the evidence impermissibly heightened the existing legal standard of clear and convincing evidence. While the circuit court agreed that a person asserting an Article 13(b) defense is not required to provide objective evidence in order to prove the defense, the court also found that the district court did not actually require “objective evidence” of abuse. The use of the phrase by the district court was simply part of its factual finding that the evidence mother provided was insufficient to meet her burden to show a grave risk to the child by clear and convincing evidence.
. This case ultimately applied only to one of the two children because the other child “aged out” (that is, the child turned sixteen during the pendency of the Hague Convention proceedings). The asylum petition was pending at the time of the decision in this case.
. Soto v. Contreras, 880 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Soto v. Contreras, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192540, at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2016) (emphasis added)).
. Soto v. Contreras, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192541, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016).
. Soto, 880 F.3d at 709­­–10 (citing Tavarez v. Jarrett, 252 F. Supp. 3d 629, 640 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing England v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2000))).
. Id. at 710 (citing Delgado v. Osuna, 2015 WL 5095231, at *13 (E.D. Tex. 28 Aug. 2015), aff’d, 837 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2016)).
. Id. (citing Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 FR 10494–01 (Mar. 1986)).
. 22 U.S.C.S. § 9003(e)(2)(A).
. Soto v. Contreras, 880 F.3d 706, 711 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Pavlides v. Galveston Yacht Basin, Inc., 727 F.2d 330, 339 n.16 (5th Cir. 1984)).
. Id. at 713 (citations omitted).
This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9003
 v. 
 v.